Question about TULIP

steamforthis said:

Calvinism's TULIP- Doesn't it contradict free will and omnibenevolence?

Click to expand...

In the sense that God does not choose to elect everybody, in that sense omnibenevolence would be a false doctrine. On the other hand, God does choose to make his sun to shine on both the just and the unjust.

As for free will, it is a very difficult concept to pin down. Like time, it seems straightforward, until you try to say what it is. But I don't want to detour too far into philosophy here.

If God wants everyone to be saved (1 Timothy 2:4), why doesn't He elect everyone? And because total depravity is true, God is the only one who can save us. So, why doesn't He elect everyone? If He really loved everyone, why wouldn't He choose everyone?

Click to expand...

As with much else in religion, we have to rest content with what scripture tells us, and it does tell us that God chooses some, and not others. Questions which can't be answered, on the basis of scripture, have to be left unanswered.

And how do we have free will to choose God (Joshua 24:15), with total depravity?

Click to expand...

The short answer to that is that we do not choose God; he chooses us. When speaking to his twelve disciples Jesus said, "Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you." (John 15.16) The subjective experience of the disciples may have been that they freely chose to follow Jesus, but who, apart from God, gave them the predisposition to do so?

And since God is the only one who predestines, doesn't that negate free will to choose? And further more, don't Irresistible Grace and Monergism completely destroy free will? Since we have no option to reject (Irresistible Grace), and we have no choice to choose God (total depravity and Monergism).

Click to expand...

You are repeating yourself here.

steamforthis said:

Then if God loves everyone, shouldn't He save everyone?

Click to expand...

God acts as seems to him best, and he doesn't ask my permission before doing so.

And how are we responsible to believe, if we can't choose?

Click to expand...

We are responsible because God holds us to be responsible. Foreordained or not, our evil acts, and our rebellion against God, are still our doing. Judas will undoubtedly be judged harshly for betraying Jesus, but do you think that the arrest and crucifixion of Jesus was something God left to chance, without foreordaining both the fact and the means by which it was to be brought about?

steamforthis said:

How can we choose God (John 3:16, Romans 10:9, Joshua 24:15), yet not choose God(John 15:16)?

Click to expand...

God must first give us life and then give us faith. Regeneration, being born of God, must come first. We cannot choose Him unless He first gives us the willingness to do so.

steamforthis said:

How can we choose God (John 3:16, Romans 10:9, Joshua 24:15), yet not choose God(John 15:16)?

Click to expand...

John 3.16 is frequently cited by Arminians, but I have never understood how they think it makes their case for them. It says that those who believe in Christ will be saved. And who will believe in him? Those who are called.

Reading that verse for the first time, and being unfamiliar with the rest of the New Testament (in fact Bible), perhaps somebody would think that your interpretation was the obvious one, but in the light of John 15.16 (and many other passages) the obvious interpretation must also be the wrong one. The Bible must be read as a whole.

As to the other two verses, they are answered in the same way. God preordains who will be saved, and then bestows the gift of faith so that they will come to him. If you want a counter example from the Old Testament:

"The king's heart is in the hand of the Lord, as the rivers of water: he turneth it whithersoever he will." (Prov 21.1)

steamforthis said:

Then if God loves everyone, shouldn't He save everyone?

And how are we responsible to believe, if we can't choose?

Click to expand...

Are you seeking knowledge, or is this a debate couched as questions? We do have a Debate a Calvinist forum if its the latter.

steamforthis said:

It's a question.

Or, actually, a number of them.

I don't know the doctrines well enough to debate about them.

Click to expand...

Cool.

steamforthis said:

Calvinism's TULIP- Doesn't it contradict free will

Click to expand...

What do you mean by "Free will"?

and omnibenevolence?

Click to expand...

Not at all. You can love someone with a special love in such a way that you don't automatically not love everyone else. For example, I love my wife in a special, unique, different way than I love all the other women in the world. I am commanded to love all fellow humans (including women). But a special love is reserved for my wife. I don't treat other women the way I treat my wife.

In like manner, Christ loves his bride the way a husband loves his. He has a special love for her. He "gave himself up for her", and "purchased the church with his blood". God loves everyone, but he has a special love for the elect. He isn't being unloving the non-elect, he's simply being specially loving towards his wife. The bible says God gives gifts to all men such as the sunshine and rain, both to the just and the unjust. But he doesn't give every gift to every man. The gift of salvation is for those he has a special love. He isn't obligated to give salvation to anyone at all. And if he gives salvation to one person, it doesn't obligate him to then give salvation to someone else, too. Nobody has claims on God's salvation. He owns it. It is His.

If God wants everyone to be saved (1 Timothy 2:4), why doesn't He elect everyone?

Click to expand...

First, I'd challenge you on your understanding of that verse. Let me give you two answers.

1) Let's say by the phrase "desires all men to be saved", Paul really does mean "all individuals in the human race". This is how non-Calvinists typically interpret this verse. For the sake of the argument, let's say they are correct.

God can both 1) be willing that all men be saved and also 2) choose to not save everyone. This is true of both Calvinism and non-Calvinism.

In both Calvinism and Arminianism, it can be said that God desires all individuals to be saved. Yet both of these systems are not universalism. God could save everyone if he wanted to. So the fact that God only saves some people is true of both Calvinism and Arminianism.

So if God wants everyone to be saved, what is stopping him?

What is stopping him in Arminianism?:
In Arminianism, the thing that is stopping Him from saving everyone is man's free will. So God can desire all men to be saved, but he has another desire that over-rides this desire, and that desire is: man's free will

What's stopping him in Calvinism?
In Calvinism, the thing that is stopping him from saving everyone is because He wants to express his grace freely. In other words, His own free will is stopping him. But this is not arbitrary. The Bible gives good reasons for why God wants to be in control of salvation. For example, 1 Corinthians says that if God chooses who is saved, he removes grounds for human boasting, and only God can take credit for salvation. Also, in Romans 9 it says that if God chooses who is saved, then He is controlling how his mercy and wrath are being glorified. Those sound like pretty good reasons.

In both systems, God can desire to save all men, but then another desire of God's swoops in and overrides the first desire.

The above is John Piper's answer.

#2) My answer is simply that you are interpreting 1 Tim 2:4 wrongly. The Greek word "pas" which we translate into English as "all" is a flexible word, and it commonly refers to "all in the group I am talking about" or "all kinds". In the context, Paul is defending his ministry to the gentiles (a kind of person), hence he says God desires all men (both jews and gentiles) to be saved, therefore, I will minister to the gentiles. Further, Paul says that we should pray for people, such as kings and those in authority. Those are kinds of people. He immediately follows this with "Because God desires all men to be saved". In other words, God even desires kings and those in authority to be saved. God desires to save all kinds of people. This phrase doesn't necessarily mean that God desires to save every single individual, but rather, all kinds of people. Jews, Gentiles, people in authority, kings, peasants, the rich, the poor. Nobody is excluded from salvation based on their social status.

So you see, no matter which way you understand 1 Tim 2:4, the verse doesn't do anything to disprove Calvinism, nor does it do anything to prove Arminianism.

And because total depravity is true, God is the only one who can save us. So, why doesn't He elect everyone? If He really loved everyone, why wouldn't He choose everyone?

Click to expand...

Answered above.

And how do we have free will to choose God (Joshua 24:15), with total depravity? And since God is the only one who predestines, doesn't that negate free will to choose? And further more, don't Irresistible Grace and Monergism completely destroy free will? Since we have no option to reject (Irresistible Grace), and we have no choice to choose God (total depravity and Monergism).[

Click to expand...

First, what do you mean by free will?

Calvinists affirm that man has a will. We believe man makes choices, and we believe man chooses what he/she desires.

Regarding Irresistible grace, you said "we have no choice to choose God". That is false. We make a real, true, free will choice to choose God. The will is not absent in salvation. It is very much working and operating. We choose God because we want to choose God.

But the reason we want to choose God in the first place is because God has spiritually resurrected us, and regenerated us.

Prior to God's saving, regenreationg, converting grace, what we desired is to disobey and reject God, thus we chose accordingly, with our free will.

But when God converts us, (a gracious act, I might add), we now desire to obey and follow God, thus we choose accordingly, with our free will.

Our free will is very much alive and operating, we are always choosing what we desire. The thing is, we would never desire God if God wasn't gracious in removing our blindfolds.

We love him because he first loved us.

steamforthis said:

This may be slightly off topic, but I just want to stick to one thread.

Since God does elect, why evangelize?

Click to expand...

The job of an evangelist is to present the Gospel. As Paul says in 1 Corinthians, the Gospel represents a wisdom which is not of this world, and which will be widely ridiculed. But those whom God wishes to save will have their ears opened by the Holy Spirit, so that they can hear the Gospel which is preached, and respond to that wisdom, which is not of this world.

steamforthis said:

This may be slightly off topic, but I just want to stick to one thread.

Since God does elect, why evangelize?

Click to expand...

Election is only one facet of salvation. Election, in and of itself, does not result in the salvation of anyone. It is merely the first step in the salvation process that God starts.

Salvation extends from eternity past to eternity future, starting with our election and ending with our glorification. Election is only one facet of salvation. There is also regeneration, sanctification, justification, glorification, etc. God doesn't stop at election, but He also does all of this other stuff, too.

The person God elects, he also works to bring that person to a saving knowledge of Jesus, by sending the gospel to them via evangelists, and then working through the evangelists efforts to change hearts, open eyes, and free people from the shackles of sin.

Evangelism is the tool, or the means that God uses to bring His people to salvation. That is why we evangelize.

In other words, the only motivation to evangelize is precisely because God elected! Here is the Apostle Paul's attitude towards election and evangelizing:

Therefore I endure everything for the sake of the elect, that they also may obtain the salvation that is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory. (2 Tim 2:10)

Paul struggled and endured many hardships (imprisonment, hunger, persecution, shipwreck) for the sake of God's chosen, that they may obtain salvation.

Election = motivation to evangelize
No election = no motivation to evangelize, because there's nobody who will believe the gospel. (And you, yourself wouldn't believe the gospel either!)

steamforthis said:

This may be slightly off topic, but I just want to stick to one thread.

Since God does elect, why evangelize?

Click to expand...

Several reasons

God also ordains the means, He desires and commands evangelism (Great Commission, etc). God so desires to awaken the elect through the "foolishness" of preaching, His means the hour of His choosing. It should be enough for us, that God commands evangelism, but there is also the truth that knowledge of election from eternity belongs to God alone. You and I do not know who God has chosen, or the hour of anyone's regeneration. So the Gospel is foolishness to them who are perishing, but the power of God unto salvation to those who believe.

Apologetic_Warrior said:

It should be enough for us, that God commands evangelism

Click to expand...

Great point. Even if evangelism made absolutely zero sense, the fact that God commanded us to do it is reason enough.

Question: "If election is true, why evangelise?"
Answer: Because God commanded it.

Of course, there are many answers, as the ones listed in the thread so far. But #1 reason is because God commanded it.

steamforthis said:

Calvinism's TULIP- Doesn't it contradict free will and omnibenevolence?

Click to expand...

Entire books have been written addressing this question. Martin Luther wrote "The Bondage of the Will", John Calvin wrote "The Bondage and Liberation of the Will", Jonathan Edwards wrote "The Freedom of the Will", and this only scratches the surface. R.C. Sproul wrote a brief historical overview on free will in a book called "Willing to Believe: The Controversy Over Free Will".

"Free will" is not so much of a biblical term as it is a philosophical term, and it has been defined in different ways, and in contrast to "determinism" another philosophical term which has been defined in different ways. Historically the majority of Calvinists could be classified as "compatibilists", a view of free will defined in philosophy as compatibilism.

In Scripture, time and again we read about God choosing, and how His choices trump man's choices. It should be obvious, our omnipotent sovereign God has the free-est will logically possible.

steamforthis said:

If God wants everyone to be saved (1 Timothy 2:4), why doesn't He elect everyone? And because total depravity is true, God is the only one who can save us. So, why doesn't He elect everyone? If He really loved everyone, why wouldn't He choose everyone?

Click to expand...

Commentary on 1 Ti 2:4 by John Gill...

Who will have all men to be saved,.... The salvation which God wills that all men should enjoy, is not a mere possibility of salvation, or a mere putting them into a salvable state; or an offer of salvation to them; or a proposal of sufficient means of it to all in his word; but a real, certain, and actual salvation, which he has determined they shall have; and is sure from his own appointment, from the provision of Christ as a Saviour for them, from the covenant of grace, in which everything is secured necessary for it, and from the mission of Christ to effect it, and from its being effected by him: wherefore the will of God, that all men should be saved, is not a conditional will, or what depends on the will of man, or on anything to be performed by him, for then none might be saved; and if any should, it would be of him that willeth, contrary to the express words of Scripture; but it is an absolute and unconditional will respecting their salvation, and which infallibly secures it: nor is it such a will as is distinguishable into antecedent and consequent; with the former of which it is said, God wills the salvation of all men, as they are his creatures, and the work of his hands; and with the latter he wills, or not wills it, according to their future conduct and behaviour; but the will of God concerning man's salvation is entirely one, invariable, unalterable, and unchangeable: nor is it merely his will of approbation or complacency, which expresses only what would be grateful and well pleasing, should it be, and which is not always fulfilled; but it is his ordaining, purposing, and determining will, which is never resisted, so as to be frustrated, but is always accomplished: the will of God, the sovereign and unfrustrable will of God, has the governing sway and influence in the salvation of men; it rises from it, and is according to it; and all who are saved God wills they should be saved; nor are any saved, but whom he wills they should be saved: hence by all men, whom God would have saved, cannot be meant every individual of mankind, since it is not his will that all men, in this large sense, should be saved, unless there are two contrary wills in God; for there are some who were before ordained by him unto condemnation, and are vessels of wrath fitted for destruction; and it is his will concerning some, that they should believe a lie, that they all might be damned; nor is it fact that all are saved, as they would be, if it was his will they should; for who hath resisted his will? but there is a world of ungodly men that will be condemned, and who will go into everlasting punishment: rather therefore all sorts of men, agreeably to the use of the phrase in 1Ti 2:1 are here intended, kings and peasants, rich and poor, bond and free, male and female, young and old, greater and lesser sinners; and therefore all are to be prayed for, even all sorts of men, because God will have all men, or all sorts of men, saved; and particularly the Gentiles may be designed, who are sometimes called the world, the whole world, and every creature; whom God would have saved, as well as the Jews, and therefore Heathens, and Heathen magistrates, were to be prayed for as well as Jewish ones. Moreover, the same persons God would have saved, he would have also"

steamforthis said:

And how do we have free will to choose God (Joshua 24:15), with total depravity?

Click to expand...

Unregenerate sinners freely choose to sin, it is their nature, they choose accordingly. What an unregenerate sinner cannot do is choose contrary to their sinful nature. When we talk about free will, we have to ask, free from what to what? Everyone will agree whatever freedom is allowed in choices 1.) the outcome is already known by God 2.) and free will of man is limited by creature-liness. For example, no man by exercising the will can jump off a cliff and choose to fly, simply because man was not created to do so naturally. There are countless instances where we did not choose. For example, our parents, the year or place in history we would be born, the city or town we would be born in, the economic situation we would be born into, and yet all of these influence the choices we make later in life.

steamforthis said:

And since God is the only one who predestines, doesn't that negate free will to choose? And further more, don't Irresistible Grace and Monergism completely destroy free will? Since we have no option to reject (Irresistible Grace), and we have no choice to choose God (total depravity and Monergism).

Click to expand...

Basically it's like this, God chose from eternity, upon monergistic regeneration the quickening of the soul, we irresistibly choose, and do so with a repentant heart of flesh, after God did His work of replacing the heart of stone with a heart of flesh, after God replaced the deadened faith and it's desires with a living faith of new desires, after God renewed and illuminated the darkened carnal mind set on the flesh, to personal knowledge of salvation.

Btw, it is actually ominscience and the immutablility of God that really throw a monkey wrench to the notion of making a truly free (autonomous) choice independent of God. In other words, nobody is truly free to do contrary to what God already knows, and has always known from all eternity.

The TULIP is the most consistently Biblical systematic framework we finite creatures have available to us, praise God for His design in nature, and His orderly thoughts in Scripture.

Sure wish the OP would come back and give some feedback on the responses so far.

One reason for witnessing and evangelism is what Paul says

Romans 10

14 How then shall they call on Him in whom they have not believed?

And how shall they believe in Him of whom they have not heard?

And how shall they hear without a preacher?

15 And how shall they preach unless they are sent? As it is written:

“How beautiful are the feet of those who preach the gospel of peace,
Who bring glad tidings of good things!”
16 But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Isaiah says, “Lord, who has believed our report?”

17 So then faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.

Click to expand...

18 But I say, have they not heard? Yes indeed:

“Their sound has gone out to all the earth,
And their words to the ends of the world.”[k]

Click to expand...

Preaching, teaching, all involve speaking and hearing. God commands preaching and teaching and uses hearing to put faith into the hearts of those who will be His and are His.