T.U.L.I.P.?

I must be new at this,it's the first time I've ever come accross someone who only agrees with limited attonement and disagrees with the other four points.

 

It is one of those things that cannot be understood, how one could advocate one of the five points of Calvinism but disagree in any way with the others. If one is nonsense, all are nonsense!

By His grace, Christopher

 

It all depends on how you define the elect.

Yes, it was me! It was me do you hear??? It was me who stood up against the tide of popular opinion. I did it!!!!

 

The elect are those whom God chose in Christ before the foundation of the world.

 

But God is outside of time. People keep putting God's foreknowledge in a box.

 

The five points of Calvinism are not some sort of infallible proclamation which, if one part of them were challenged, the rest could not stand. There are plenty of theologians (including Presbyterian theologians) who only accept some of the points.

Joshua

 

Foreknowledge is not simply God's knowledge of future events. Foreknowledge means
foreordination.

(Gen. 4:1) And Adam knew Eve his wife

(Amos 3:2) You only have I known of all the families of the earth

(John 10:14) I...know my sheep

(Matt. 7:23) I never knew you

Know does not always mean to simply have knowledge of; it goes further than that. God, being all-knowing, knows all workers of iniquity exist (Matt. 7:23). However, He does not know them through the blood of Jesus Christ. For instance, you are aware Martin Luther King, Jr. existed, but you never knew him personally.

[ March 29, 2002, 09:22 AM: Message edited by: Sovereign Grace ]

 

You are right, the five points of Calvinism are not an infallible declaration. Then again, I never said they were. So...what is the problem?

 

But for God, all things happen at once. God is not limited to our aspect of time.

For God, we are not born yet, we are in our mother's womb, we are getting our first tooth, we are as we are today, we are on our death bed, we have received our punishment or reward, Adam isn't created yet, the universe hasn't been created yet, Noah is building his ark...

All at this moment.

Get your mind around this concept, then you can start to see where I am coming from.

 

Chris, Christopher & Sovereign Grace,
Your three are from Winston-Salem, NC which is my hometown & I have family there. Just curious as to which church you belong and whether you are all in the same church.

 

From what I have read on this board, Christopher is a Primitive Baptist. I have not yet met Chris. I am not a Primitive Baptist. I am a Sovereign Grace Baptist. Sovereign Grace Baptists teach what the early Primitive Baptists taught. The Primitive Baptists today do not teach what the original Old School Baptists taught.

 

Tuor,

That is one confusing post without any biblical truth. As far as God is concerned, His people are already called, justified, and glorified because in Romans 8 those words are in the past tense. However, I do not think, in the mind of God, we are still in our mother's womb.

 

One cannot be a Calvinist and hold less than the five points. But the five points are not the measure of Calvinism; they are a response to the five points of the Arminian Remonstrants. There could just as easily have been 7, 10 or 20 points in response to Arminian errors.

Calvinism is not a series of points, but a Biblical worldview, where everything is considered under and measured against God's immutable character and his Divine Sovereign Grace. Once it is understood who God really is, only "Calvinism" makes sense as true biblical theology.

 

Your second state shows a fallacy in your first. It is true that Calvinism is a worldview ... a biblical one. But one need not necessarily hold to the five points to be a Calvinist. A calvinist is one who consistently holds to the sovereignty of God. The kingpin in it is unconditional election as far as I am concerned. If someone consistently affirms unconditional election, they have met the standard of Scriptural teaching.

 

There is no fallacy. So one can be a 1 point Calvinist? The "kingpin" is not election, as many presume, but total depravity. All those who reject any or all of ULIP always do so because they ultimately reject T. One cannot hold to election if T is not true, there is no need of it. Neither does LIP make sense if T is not held. Calvinism is holding to the entire biblical witness of divine sovereignty and redemption as revealed in Scripture, which includes TULIP.

 

Even if total depravity is not true (which it is) someone could hold to unconditional election. He would thus be a supralapsarian and hold to the caricature of God that is so common among those who reject Calvinism, namely the caricature that God is condemning some to hell who want to go to heaven. Conversely, one could hold to total depravity but still believe in some kind of prevenient grace (as true arminians do) and thereby avoid unconditional election. True arminians believe in total depravity but believe that God has given all men prevenient grace that is not inherent in their nature. Thus you have total depravity with conditional election ... conditioned on the response to prevenient grace.

Irresistable grace follows on unconditional election. I agree here that to hold one without the other is inconsistent.

Perseverance is not necessary to the system but is necessary to biblical teaching. One can hold perseverance and not be a calvinist. All who believe you can lose your salvation hold to perseverance in some form.

Limited atonement can be defined in such a way that even you will agree with an unlimited atonement.

Unconditional election is the one thing that cannot be done without. Unconditional election is the sine qua non as I see it.

As you say, it is a worldview, not adherence to certain issues or points.

[ March 30, 2002, 11:57 AM: Message edited by: Pastor Larry ]

 

Chris,

I don't see any unbreakable connection between T and L. I can see how L could be logically argued from God's sovereignty (though I don't think L is biblically defensible in its historical definition), but not as a necessary extension of T.