Calvinists/Reformed, Please help me explain TULIP.

It is plain that the New Covenant is the formally established Covenant of Redemption in time, in which Christ intended only to save his elect as the reward of his work. In the New Covenant, he purchases not only an atonement for sin on their account, but the very means to obtain that atonement and personal entrance into that covenant relationship. Every aspect, including regeneration, of the total redemption of Christ was purchased for the elect alone. He is their federal head, who represents them in his active and passive obedience. He is not dying for an anonymous group, he intended that death to cover the sins of his particular people, who he knows by name, foreknown before the ages.

nonaeroterraqueous said:

You know as well as anyone that it wasn't the degree of his suffering that was able to save the multitude, but it was the divinity and perfection of the one doing the suffering that had the power. Perfection is an absolute, a thing with an infinite quality. The suffering of the Perfect had limitless power to atone. Though it was the combination of Christ's perfection and his suffering that atoned, it was the perfection, rather than the suffering, that quantified the result.

Click to expand...

Good way to put it. It matters much about the person of Christ in understanding the work of Christ.

His blood was infinite in worth and value, but it had a purpose nonetheless.

jason_delisle said:

Greetings,

I first wanted to say upfront that I am not reformed however I have a friend who is expressing his disagreement (rather strongly) to 5 Point Calvinism (TULIP). I would prefer not have this turn into another Calvinism/Arminianism debate. Rather, I want to make sure that I am showing respect towards Reformed Denominations and the Christians who follow 5 Point Calvinism by ensuring that I am communicating what the doctrines actually mean as opposed to what many have been told to believe about them. I have read 'The Institutes' by Calvin and numerous other Reformed resources. So I feel like I have a fairly decent grasp on the topic. However, I would like to be able to break it down as simply as possible as if I was talking to a child. I will provide and example from my understanding. If you could please add, modify, delete or correct to help me be accurate and not spread inaccurate information. That would be very appreciative.

Total Depravity: It means everything about our being has been stained or corrupted by sin.

It doesn't mean we are "No Good". Rather, it means nothing about us is perfect so we have nothing worthy enough to offer God in return for our salvation. Salvation is through His grace alone. Further more, we have a will, however, it isn't free. Rather it is a slave to sin. We are dead to sin. Thus, to suggest that we can choose to be saved is like saying a prisoner can choose to walk out of their cell or a corpse can choose to come back to life. Only through God's grace is it possible to come to salvation.

Unconditional Election: God chooses His elect solely by His sovereign will. There are absolutely no conditions that are placed on us that will dictate whether or not God elects us. Thus, we cannot earn election nor can we loose election as a result of any actions on our part.

Limited Atonement: Although Christ died for everyone and the Atonement was offered universally, it is limited in application. It doesn't mean Christ died for only the elect. He died for all, but only the elect will have the atonement applied to their sins at the moment of justification.

Irresistible Grace: When God begins his work on his elect, it is impossible to turn away from it. Like a fly drawn to a flytrap, accepting the grace is inevitable. ​

Perseverance/Preservation of the Elect: Going back to the fly trap analogy. If Irresistible Grace is a fly drawn to a trap, Perseverance of the elect is a fly caught in the trap. Once are hearts are transformed by the renewing of the spirit, it is impossible to turn away from it. Theoretically we could choose to turn away from God. However, it would be actually impossible. As a result, the elect will persevere till the end. The elect will 'finish the race'.

Once again, I know these are very rudimentary explanations and much detail has been left out. But I am merely trying to communicate the basics to bring clarification and understanding of what TULIP actually means to address the misconceptions many people have. Thank you. ​

Click to expand...

An assistant pastor from Bible seminary in USA told me that Calvin never said God predestined or choose individuals for redemption, he claimed that Calvin was misunderstood. But whatever Calvin means, individual predestination has NO contextual evidence in the Bible.

Instead, Ephesians 1,2,3. explains that God had predestined or pre-planned to offer redemption to the Jews and then the Gentiles. I will just highlight the key words here:

Chapter 1:1-10: Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God. To the Saints at Ephesus … < Who are the Saints? This is revealed in 2:11: “.you who are Gentiles”, Paul was writing to Gentile Christians at Ephesus,. He called them “saints” because after repentance, they were no more unclean - now Gentiles too were holy in God's eyes. which the Jews used to think they were. Note that NIV version said “holy people” instead of Saints (ESV, NASB used “saints”).

[1:4-11] just as He [God] chose us in Him before the foundation of the world .. He predestined us ….. [11] In him we were also chosen, having been predestined according to the plan of him …. (12) in order that we, who were the first to put our hope in Christ, ...(13) And you also were included in Christ when you heard the message of truth ….<< who are the “us” and “we” ?

"We, who are first to hope in Christ" refer to Jews. Paul used the word "We" because he was a Jew writing to gentiles. Weren’t the Jews the first to be chosen by God as a nation or people? As the apostle referred to Gentiles, he said "you"

2:1-3:21: Therefore, remember that formerly you who are Gentiles by birth and called “uncircumcised” ….. separate from Christ, excluded from citizenship in Israel. … (13) But now you… have been brought near by the blood of Christ..... (21) For he ...has made the two groups one...… His purpose was to create ... one new humanity out of the two, … (3:1 6) and in one body to reconcile both of them to God through the cross … (18) For through him we both have access to the Father by one Spirit… This mystery is that through the gospel the Gentiles are heirs together with Israel, members together of one body, and sharers together in the promise in Christ Jesus …

Paul was trying to explain, that after Christ’s atonement, both Jews and Gentiles havd access to God if they repent and turn to Him. Notice the emphasis of two people become one to God, means no more segregation in Him.

Why did Paul said "before the foundation of the earth" (1:11) ? It was to answer the Jews who claimed that God suddenly decided to offer redemption to the Gentiles after Israel rejected Jesus; they were implying that the Gentiles were second class or less important in God's eyes. However, Paul emphasized that way back, as early you can think of -- even before the foundation of the earth -- God had planned to reach out to the Gentiles; that is how early God had predestined or pre-planned this. It did not mean that He decided whether to save Jack or Jane before the earth was made.

Regarding Romans 9:18-23: Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth .... " The Jews were shocked that God offered redemption to Gentiles, Paul was saying that God could choose to have mercy on Gentiles. It does not mean that God choose individuals to be saved.

We spend too much time quoting what other people said and not enough time thinking for ourselves and believing what God said:

The three wills as taught in Scripture:

The Bible teaches us of three wills: The will of man, the will of Jesus, and the will of the Father. They are distinctly different.
Man’s Will: "1 The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. Corrupt are they, and have done abominable iniquity: there is none that doeth good.
2 God looked down from heaven upon the children of men, to see if there were any that did understand, that did seek God.
3 Every one of them is gone back: they are altogether become filthy; there is none that doeth good, no, not one." - Psalm 53:1-3.
“10 As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:
11 There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God.
12 They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one." - Romans 3:10-12.
“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." - Romans 8:7-8.
Our wills are not free, but a slave to sin. The reference of taking of the water freely in Revelation 21:6 - “6 And he said unto me, ‘It is done. I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end. I will give unto him that is athirst of the fountain of the water of life freely.'” is when the saints are already raptured incorruptible, in glory; not now, while still corruptible. We start out in the fleshly, carnal mind, not able to come to Christ of our own volition because Jesus says that none do. Period.

Jesus' Will: "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." - 2 Peter 3:9.
Note that His promise is to us-ward (believers), not to all people, just the believers.
"And the angel said unto them, Fear not: for, behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people." - Luke 2:8.
“15 That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.” - John 3:15-17.
These verses are often confused with preaching free will, but they say nothing of will, free or otherwise. They teach salvation by belief. Whosoever believes shall be saved. Whosoever won't believe, won't be saved. These are facts, future tense, not speaking of our will as being in control. Jesus' will is to save the whole world.

The Father's Will: "38 For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me.
39 And this is the Father’s will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day.
40 And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day." - John 6:38-40.
In John 17 Jesus prays to the Father, not for the world, but those whom the Father gives to Jesus out of the world, not only up to that time, but for all believers in the future as well (verses 20-21).
" 37 All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out." - John 6:37.
"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." - John 6:44.
"64 But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him.
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.’
66 From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him." - John 6:64-66.
"Jesus saith unto him, ‘I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.’" - John 14:6.

So, we can't come to the Father but by the Son, and we can't come unto the Son except it be given to us of the Father; that He draws us to the Son, that He gives us to the Son, who will not cast us out for any reason and will raise us up at the last day. That all that the Father gives to Jesus shall come to Him. There is not even an inkling of man's responsibility or will involved here, neither indeed can be; it is all the work of God. Three wills, starting with the Father, completed by the Son with the Holy Spirit, and man who strives against God in this life, even after salvation.

Dave L said:

This is Amyraldianism (4 point Calvinisism) = glossed over Arminianism

Click to expand...

If we really have to label our beliefs in this manner - John Calvin was an Amyraldianist and we have to say that his teaching, were he alive today, would be glossed over Arminianism.

A FEW QUOTES BY JOHN CALVIN CONCERNING SO CALLED LIMITED ATONEMENT:

1 John 2:2--"he is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for the whole world"----------------------- "CHRIST SUFFERED FOR THE SINS OF THE WHOLE WORLD. and in the goodness of God is OFFERED UNTO ALL MEN WITHOUT DISTINCTION, HIS BLOOD BEING SHED NOT FOR A PART OF THE WORLD ONLY, BUT FOR THE WHOLE HUMAN RACE; for although in the world nothing is found worthy of the favor of God, yet he HOLDS OUT THE PROPITIATION TO THE WHOLE WORLD, since without exception he SUMMONS ALL TO THE FAITH OF CHRIST, which is nothing else than the door unto hope."

Mark 14:24: "This is my blood of the new testament, WHICH IS SHED FOR MANY"..................... "The word 'many' DOES NOT MEAN A PART OF THE WORLD ONLY, BUT THE WHOLE HUMAN RACE: he contrasts many with one as if to say that he would not be the Redeemer of one man, but would meet death to deliver many of their cursed guilt. No doubt that in speaking to a few Christ wished to make His teaching available to a larger number...So when we come to the holy table not only should the general idea come to our mind that THE WORLD IS REDEEMED BY THE BLOOD OF CHRIST but also each should reckon to himself that his own sins are covered.

Romans 5:18: "Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life."
"Paul makes grace COMMON TO ALL MEN, not because it in fact EXTENDS TO ALL, but because IT IS OFFERED TO ALL. Although CHRIST SUFFERED FOR THE SINS OF THE WORLD. AND IS OFFERED BY THE GOODNESS OF GOD WITHOUT DISTINCTION TO ALL MEN, yet not all receive him"

Calvin's "LAST WILL AND TESTAMENT, April 25, 1564":
"I testify also and declare, that I suppliantly beg of Him, that He may be pleased so to was and purify me in the blood which my Sovereign Redeemer HAS SHED FOR THE SINS OF THE HUMAN RACE, that under His shadow I may be able to stand at the judgment-seat....

Mark 14:24 passage:
COMMENTARY ON A HARMONY OF THE EVANGELISTS, MATTHEW, MARK, AND LUKE, BY JOHN CALVIN
TRANSLATED FROM THE ORIGINAL LATIN, AND COLLATED WITH THE AUTHOR'S FRENCH VERSION, VOLUME THIRD BY THE REV. WILLIAM PRINGLE
CHRISTIAN CLASSICS ETHEREAL LIBRARY -- GRAND RAPIDS, MI

Romans 5:18 passage:
COMMENTARIES ON THE EPISTLE OF PAUL THE APOSTLE TO THE ROMANS
BY JOHN CALVIN
TRANSLATED AND EDITED BY THE REV. JOHN OWEN, VICAR OF THRUSSINGTON, LEICESTERSHIRE
CHRISTIAN CLASSICS ETHEREAL LIBRARY GRAND RAPIDS, MI

Concerning Calvin’s will:
History of the Christian Church, Volume VIII: Modern Christianity. “The Swiss Reformation”
§ 165. Calvin’s Last Will, and Farewells.

Regarding the 1 John 2:2 passage the best I can do is give you the reference that I have. I do not have a reference from the works of Calvin himself. Perhaps you can better research it out better than I was able to.

Dr. Augustus H. Strong, in his standard Systematic Theology Vol. II, Doctrine of Salvation, page 778, quotes from “CALVIN'S LATER COMMENTS”

Here are a few more things to consider (from the same Calvin source as before (different volumes).

Concerning John 1.29 “And when he says, the sin Of The World, he extends this favor indiscriminately to the whole human race… and that as all men without exception are guilty of unrighteousness before God…Now our duty is, to embrace the benefit which is offered to all, that each of us may be convinced that there is nothing to hinder him from obtaining reconciliation in Christ, provided that he comes to him by the guidance of faith.”

Concerning John 3:14-16 “…that faith in Christ brings life to all, and that Christ brought life, because the Heavenly Father loves the human race, and wishes that they should not perish…And he has employed the universal term whosoever, both to invite all indiscriminately to partake of life, and to cut off every excuse from unbelievers. Such is also the import of the term World, which he formerly used; for though nothing will be found in the world that is worthy of the favor of God, yet he shows himself to be reconciled to the whole world, when he invites all men without exception to the faith of Christ, which is nothing else than an entrance into life…”

Concerning John 16:8-11 “…Under the term world are, I think, included not only those who would be truly converted to Christ, but hypocrites and reprobates.”

Concerning Gal. 5:12 “His indignation proceeds still farther, and he prays for destruction on those impostors by whom the Galatians had been deceived. The word, "cut off," appears to be employed in allusion to the circumcision which they pressed. "They tear the church for the sake of circumcision: I wish they were entirely cut off." Chrysostom favors this opinion. But how can such an imprecation be reconciled with the mildness of an apostle, who ought to wish that all should be saved, and that not a single person should perish? So far as men are concerned, I admit the force of this argument; for it is the will of God that we should seek the salvation of all men without exception, as Christ suffered for the sins of the whole world.”

Concerning Col. 1:14 “He says that this redemption was procured through the blood of Christ, for by the sacrifice of his death all the sins of the world have been expiated.”

Frankly Calvin was a bit ambiguous on this particular doctrine. He seems to have changed his mind in later years. That shows character to me. More character IMO than those who hold doggedly to the so called 5-point Calvinism party line.

5-pointers like to say that Christ's death atoned fully for the sins of the elect and for those sins only.

Scripture teaches otherwise.

Christ's death, in and of itself, fully atoned for the sins of no one - not even the elect. It must be combined with the faith of individual sinners to save. Only when it is so combined with faith it will save. Until that time His death remains only "potential" atonement.

That may well be what most 5-pointers call Arminianism. But it is exactly what they themselves believe (or at least should believe) concerning their own salvation.

Even the elect are considered for much of their lives as children of wrath and enemies of God just as are the non-elect. And that - some 2000 years after the death of Jesus Christ on their behalf. Only when they believed were they acceptable to God - even some 2000 years after His atonement on their behalf.

Hard line Calvinists believe that people can be in this condition for some 10, 30, or 90 years but no longer. That condition being people for whom Christ died and who are under the wrath of God.

But they refuse to believe that people can be in that condition for one second longer than their physical life on earth. I.e. - they refuse to believe that people can exist for eternity in that condition.

That condition being, again, people with their sins atoned for at Calvary and yet unsaved and under the wrath of God.

While they may think themselves to be thinking logically with the doctrine of so called limited atonement - as I see it - hard line Calvinists are simply reasoning illogically because of a certain bias (a bias that John Calvin himself did not labor under).

His student said:

Christ's death, in and of itself, fully atoned for the sins of no one - not even the elect. It must be combined with the faith of individual sinners to save. Only when it is so combined with faith it will save. Until that time His death remains only "potential" atonement.

Click to expand...

Hi His student, if this is true, that Christ's death cannot save anyone, even the elect, apart from each person's choice to believe, then what becomes of the many who cannot come to saving faith in Christ (babies, young children, pre-born children, the severely mentally retarded, etc)? Do you believe that they are therefore lost forever?

Thanks!

--David

His student said:

5-pointers like to say that Christ's death atoned fully for the sins of the elect and for those sins only.

Scripture teaches otherwise.

Christ's death, in and of itself, fully atoned for the sins of no one - not even the elect. It must be combined with the faith of individual sinners to save. Only when it is so combined with faith it will save. Until that time His death remains only "potential" atonement.

That may well be what most 5-pointers call Arminianism. But it is exactly what they themselves believe (or at least should believe) concerning their own salvation.

Even the elect are considered for much of their lives as children of wrath and enemies of God just as are the non-elect. And that - some 2000 years after the death of Jesus Christ on their behalf. Only when they believed were they acceptable to God - even some 2000 years after His atonement on their behalf.

Hard line Calvinists believe that people can be in this condition for some 10, 30, or 90 years but no longer. That condition being people for whom Christ died and who are under the wrath of God.

But they refuse to believe that people can be in that condition for one second longer than their physical life on earth. I.e. - they refuse to believe that people can exist for eternity in that condition.

That condition being, again, people with their sins atoned for at Calvary and yet unsaved and under the wrath of God.

While they may think themselves to be thinking logically with the doctrine of so called limited atonement - as I see it - hard line Calvinists are simply reasoning illogically because of a certain bias (a bias that John Calvin himself did not labor under).

Click to expand...

This results in salvation for the self-righteous who save themselves. And rob God of his glory while doing it. Applying it to themselves. Because they are good enough in and of themselves to choose salvation.

St_Worm2 said:

Hi His student, if this is true, that Christ's death cannot save anyone, even the elect, apart from each person's choice to believe, then what becomes of the many who cannot come to saving faith in Christ (babies, young children, pre-born children, the severely mentally retarded, etc)? Do you believe that they are therefore lost forever? Thanks!--David

Click to expand...

It is true - and that fact won't change whatever you and I believe about the ultimate fate of those people.

But - since we are talking about them - and since faith is a gift from God and not of ourselves - that will be up to God's electing grace just as it with you and I.

Of course - if you are of the persuasion (as so many are) that faith is of ourselves, in spite of what the scriptures tell us - then I suppose they would be lost in your theology because they could not be able to exercise saving faith.

In this case - so called Calvinism (as opposed to Arminianism) is the more merciful doctrine as far as the fate of people like that goes.

Dave L said:

This results in salvation for the self-righteous who save themselves. And rob God of his glory while doing it. Applying it to themselves. Because they are good enough in and of themselves to choose salvation.

Click to expand...

I did not, in my post, address the doctrines of total depravity and the resulting corresponding necessity of the electing grace of God toward those given to the Son by the Father - only the erroneous conclusion on which so called limited atonement as often taught by Calvinists is based.

Solid Reformed theology does not depend on the over reach of limited atonement as so often taught. Otherwise we would have to say that Calvin was not a solid Reformed theologian.

P.S.
You may notice that I make it a point to say "as so often taught".

That's because both Calvinists and Arminians agree that the atonement is limited in it's "efficacious" application only to those who believe in a saving way.

Total depravity and unconditional election in TULIP have already taken care of any Reformed emphasis that we may find the need to state.

Teaching limited atonement in the proper and biblical way would remove an unnecessary offense in the doctrine of TULIP.

We could, I suppose since TULIP came along well after John Calvin died, eliminate the "L" altogether when laying out the ideas of Calvinism.

Of course then we'd have to figure out what a "T U I P" is.

Better to just teach limited atonement in a way that does not cause unnecessary offense to the vast majority of Christians - since that way is the more biblically accurate way in the first place.

His student said:

It is true - and that fact won't change whatever you and I believe about the ultimate fate of those people.

But - since we are talking about them - and since faith is a gift from God and not of ourselves - that will be up to God's electing grace just as it with you and I.

Of course - if you are of the persuasion (as so many are) that faith is of ourselves, in spite of what the scriptures tell us - then I suppose they would be lost in your theology because they could not be able to exercise saving faith.

In this case - so called Calvinism (as opposed to Arminianism) is the more merciful doctrine as far as the fate of people like that goes.

Click to expand...

Hi again His student, interestingly, this very topic was the subject of much consternation and public debate during the Reformation, perhaps most notably between Calvin and Servetus. Servetus, who held the strong 'free will' position that you seem to, argued that salvation was a matter of faith, and that babies who died were therefore lost because they didn't choose to believe (even though such a thing was not possible for them to do, of course).

Calvin, on the other hand, argued that children and pre-born children who died were always/only among the elect of God, and that God chose to graciously save them because they were (perhaps knowing that as members of His elect, they would have come to faith in Christ had they lived .. though sadly, I don't remember whether that was Calvin's reasoning or not).

Calvin also argued, along with St. Paul, that God would have had no basis upon which to judge them at the Great White Throne .. see Romans 2:12-16, since they neither knew nor had the capacity to understand the law*, even the basic law that was written in their hearts by God.

*(I believe Servetus insisted that they were damned on the basis of their fallen nature alone, which the Bible disagrees with, and so does Calvin)

As far as faith being a "gift" from God, yes, I believe that it is just that. We're the ones who choose to believe and actually do the believing, of course, but we would never choose to believe apart from the gift God gives us. The only reason that our choice to come to saving faith by believing .. cf John 6:29 is not meritorious is because all who receive this particular gift from God (IOW, all who are drawn by the Father and given by Him to His Son) eventually choose to believe and are saved. As the Lord tells us:


Yours and His,
David

St_Worm2 said:

Servetus, who held the strong 'free will' position that you seem to, argued that salvation was a matter of faith, and that babies who died were therefore lost because they didn't choose to believe (even though such a thing was not possible for them to do, of course).

Click to expand...

I believe you have my position backward. I would align more with the position of Calvin - as follows.

St_Worm2 said:

Calvin, on the other hand, argued that children and pre-born children who died were always/only among the elect of God, and that God chose to graciously save them because they were (perhaps knowing that as members of His elect, they would have come to faith in Christ had they lived .. though sadly, I don't remember whether that was Calvin's reasoning or not).

Click to expand...

St_Worm2 said:

Calvin, on the other hand, argued that children and pre-born children who died were always/only among the elect of God, and that God chose to graciously save them because they were (perhaps knowing that as members of His elect, they would have come to faith in Christ had they lived .. though sadly, I don't remember whether that was Calvin's reasoning or not).

Calvin also argued, along with St. Paul, that God would have had no basis upon which to judge them at the Great White Throne .. see Romans 2:12-16, since they neither knew nor had the capacity to understand the law*, even the basic law that was written in their hearts by God.

Click to expand...

I would argue along with Calvin and Paul.

I'm not sure where you got the idea that I wouldn't. Saying that people who sinned have to have saving faith in order to be saved is not the same as saying that those who have never sinned would also.

St_Worm2 said:

*(I believe Servetus insisted that they were damned on the basis of their fallen nature alone, which the Bible disagrees with, and so does Calvin)

Click to expand...

I disagree with Servetus as well.

St_Worm2 said:

As far as faith being a "gift" from God, yes, I believe that it is just that. We're the ones who choose to believe and actually do the believing, of course, but we would never choose to believe apart from the gift God gives us. The only reason that our choice to come to saving faith by believing .. cf John 6:29 is not meritorious is because all who receive this particular gift from God (IOW, all who are drawn by the Father and given by Him to His Son) eventually choose to believe and are saved. As the Lord tells us:.....

Click to expand...

I agree.

It seems that some Reformed believers here are under the impression that I do not believe in total depravity and the doctrine of election simply because I take exception to the doctrine of limited atonement as so often taught by so called 5-point Calvinists.

If I really have to categorize myself as a Calvinist or an Arminian (something I really don't like to do unless necessary to make a point) - I will say that I am as "Calvinist" as John Calvin was.

His student said:

I believe you have my position backward. I would align more with the position of Calvin - as follows. I would argue along with Calvin and Paul.
I'm not sure where you got the idea that I wouldn't.

Click to expand...

When you said, "It is true - and that fact won't change whatever you and I believe about the ultimate fate of those people", I guess I extended that to mean that you believe what Servetus did about babies.

I'm glad to know that you don't however

His student said:

It seems that some Reformed believers here are under the impression that I do not believe in total depravity and the doctrine of election simply because I take exception to the doctrine of limited atonement as so often taught by so called 5-point Calvinists. If I really have to categorize myself as a Calvinist or an Arminian (something I really don't like to do unless necessary to make a point) - I will say that I am as "Calvinist" as John Calvin was.

Click to expand...

I'd like to talk to you about Calvin and his view of Limited Atonement (since you already brought it up), but that's going to have to wait for another day I'm afraid (probably until Monday, because tomorrow evening, my Bible study group that normally meets on Sunday nights, has decided to have a party and study a football game instead ).

Talk to you then (Dv)

--David

St_Worm2 said:

When you said, "It is true - and that fact won't change whatever you and I believe about the ultimate fate of those people", I guess I extended that to mean that you believe what Servetus did about babies. I'm glad to know that you don't however

Click to expand...

I guess that's the trouble with not being able to fully nuance our beliefs in these brief posts.

Any "sinner" must exercise saving faith in order to be justified. I believe that's biblical.

But when we bring in those who have never sinned and died (like fetal humans or the mentally unable) - that's another story.

It is all by grace that people are saved and, although I can't be dogmatic about it, I believe they are saved by grace.

I believe that we are born with the propensity to sin. I do not, however, believe that we are sinners simply by virtue of being human.

After all - Jesus was fully human just as we are and yet was always without sin.

I suppose that may be up for debate. Many Calvinists would disagree with that.

Many would make it a point to tell me that He was fully human "and yet without sin". But IMO that's a bit of a cop out. It seems to me to look at it such that no human is a sinner until he sins is the more biblical way.

The Lord will sort it all out when the time comes and I don't believe we have to be completely dogmatic about such things in order to be good teachers of the Word.

Sound Doctrine said:

..... we can't come unto the Son except it be given to us of the Father .... There is not even an inkling of man's responsibility or will involved here, neither indeed can be; it is all the work of God. Three wills, starting with the Father, completed by the Son with the Holy Spirit, and man who strives against God in this life, even after salvation.

Click to expand...

I read the verses you used and you concluded that there is no inkling of man's responsibility or will.

But what about this verse Acts 3:17, ".. what must we do?" , the crowd asked Peter after he told them them that they have crucified Jesus their Messiah. Upon which Peter said they must repent.

While quoting verses you choose, you miss the forest (context) for the tree. The call to repent through Jesus is the central theme and context of NT. It is our will and responsibility to repent.

His student said:

I did not, in my post, address the doctrines of total depravity and the resulting corresponding necessity of the electing grace of God toward those given to the Son by the Father - only the erroneous conclusion on which so called limited atonement as often taught by Calvinists is based.

Solid Reformed theology does not depend on the over reach of limited atonement as so often taught. Otherwise we would have to say that Calvin was not a solid Reformed theologian.

P.S.
You may notice that I make it a point to say "as so often taught".

That's because both Calvinists and Arminians agree that the atonement is limited in it's "efficacious" application only to those who believe in a saving way.

Total depravity and unconditional election in TULIP have already taken care of any Reformed emphasis that we may find the need to state.

Teaching limited atonement in the proper and biblical way would remove an unnecessary offense in the doctrine of TULIP.

We could, I suppose since TULIP came along well after John Calvin died, eliminate the "L" altogether when laying out the ideas of Calvinism.

Of course then we'd have to figure out what a "T U I P" is.

Better to just teach limited atonement in a way that does not cause unnecessary offense to the vast majority of Christians - since that way is the more biblically accurate way in the first place.

Click to expand...

I don't think Calvin understood the atonement as well as the people at Dordt. And even then the Reformed make the Word the means of grace which cheats the atonement of its power to save intrinsically. This is why I embrace the first 3 points but make regeneration the means of grace with faith being the result.

Dave L said:

I don't think Calvin understood the atonement as well as the people at Dordt. And even then the Reformed make the Word the means of grace which cheats the atonement of its power to save intrinsically. This is why I embrace the first 3 points but make regeneration the means of grace with faith being the result.

Click to expand...

Calvin did flip flop a wee bit when it comes to his view of the atonement.

When it comes to the doctrine of "irresistible" grace, I need to nuance a bit in order to not be misunderstood as to what I mean by that point (just as I do with the other points). I have used T.U.L.I.P. in my teaching over the years. Yet not without a pretty good discussion on each point. Never have I simply stated them in a simple statement and expected there not to be discussion and some nuance as to what is and is not accurate (as I see things) on each point.

For instance - take "unconditional" election. I believe a super strong Calvinist statement on that leaves no room for the concept of God answering the prayer of a mother for a son or daughter and the like. I believe there are ways to nuance the word "unconditional" which allows for that altogether biblical idea.

Concerning irresistible grace again - while I certainly agree that all those "given and drawn" by the Father will eventually come to the Son - I believe there can be quite a bit of "resistance" by the elect individual along the way.

I cite Paul and his kicking against the goads. I also cite my own case where it took quite a struggle before I finally yielded to the Lord's drawing.

His student said:

Calvin did flip flop a wee bit when it comes to his view of the atonement.

When it comes to the doctrine of "irresistible" grace, I need to nuance a bit in order to not be misunderstood as to what I mean by that point (just as I do with the other points). I have used T.U.L.I.P. in my teaching over the years. Yet not without a pretty good discussion on each point. Never have I simply stated them in a simple statement and expected there not to be discussion and some nuance as to what is and is not accurate (as I see things) on each point.

For instance - take "unconditional" election. I believe a super strong Calvinist statement on that leaves no room for the concept of God answering the prayer of a mother for a son or daughter and the like. I believe there are ways to nuance the word "unconditional" which allows for that altogether biblical idea.

Concerning irresistible grace again - while I certainly agree that all those "given and drawn" by the Father will eventually come to the Son - I believe there can be quite a bit of "resistance" by the elect individual along the way.

I cite Paul and his kicking against the goads. I also cite my own case where it took quite a struggle before I finally yielded to the Lord's drawing.

Click to expand...

The mother would pray and receive according to God's eternal decree. The prayer of faith tells us we are in store for what God has decreed.

Dave L said:

The mother would pray and receive according to God's eternal decree. The prayer of faith tells us we are in store for what God has decreed.

Click to expand...

I totally agree.

Everything that happens in God's creation was and is predestined to happen.

roman2819 said:

I read the verses you used and you concluded that there is no inkling of man's responsibility or will.

But what about this verse Acts 3:17, ".. what must we do?" , the crowd asked Peter after he told them them that they have crucified Jesus their Messiah. Upon which Peter said they must repent.

While quoting verses you choose, you miss the forest (context) for the tree. The call to repent through Jesus is the central theme and context of NT. It is our will and responsibility to repent.

Click to expand...

You think I conveniently choose certain Scriptures and not consider the rest? Of course we are to repent and to be converted. We cannot convert ourselves. "Except ye be converted and come unto me as a child, ye shall in no wise enter the kingdom of God." God does the conversion of those whom He has chosen from the foundation of the world, written in the Lamb's Book of Life from the foundation of the world. There is no inkling of man's will leading us to salvation. I stand by that statement on the basis that although Jesus tells us to seek Him out, to be converted, none of us do. God says none seeks after Him, none doeth good, no, not one. We don't find or accept that which we don't seek. We are to worship God in spirit and in truth, and God seeketh such to worship Him. God does the seeking and causes us to approach unto Him and to walk in His commandments. This is what the Bible says. Man's will is against God, so who is going to come to Him of their own volition? No one. How is it we are then saved? By election (divine selection).