The L In The TULIP Doctrine

The "L" in "TULIP" is certainly the most difficult of the points of Calvinism because it seems to contradict certain statements in Scripture, as Ray pointed out. However, the Arminian position is no better for it also seems to contradict certain passages.

First in regards to the whole being saved apart from the gospel issue, I hope we are just defining things differently. The Bible certainly is clear that an exposure to the gospel is a prerequisite for faith. The gospel (in Christ) is the object of saving faith. No faith in Christ, no salvation, period. Now Paul is clear in II Corinthians that the same gospel is an aroma of life to one group of people and a stench of death to another. The gospel, apart from the divine working of the Holy Spirit saves no one, but the gospel is God's determined means of bringing someone to saving faith.

Anyway, to the main point. What do we do when we are presented with two groups of passages that seem to contradict? We use the analogy of faith. In this case, we look at those doctrines of Scripture which are inextricably linked with the atonement.
1. The Council of Redemption - Scripture presents us with an event in eternity past where the Trinity "planned" redemption. We do know that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are not on three different missions. The Father only decided to save some and the Holy Spirit only regenerates some. The Son was not sent on a mission different from the other two.
2. Union with Christ - Scripture also presents us as being in Christ from the foundation of the world. In God's justice, we died in Christ and were resurrected in Christ, because we were in Him. The idea of a non-particular redemption seems to play havoc with the very clear doctrine of our union with Christ. The non-elect were not in Christ. Christ was not dying for them.
3. Priesthood of Christ - Scripture is very clear that intercession and atonement are done to the same degree and extent by a priest. When the priest offered an atonement he interceded for only the group of people whom he had just offered the sacrifice for. John 17 presents intercession as limited to the elect. We would have to abandon the clear teaching of the priestly work to then assume that the atonement is then somehow equal for all.
4. Essence of atonement - This goes along with something that Pastor Larry mentioned earlier. An atonement is an actual substitution, just like propitiation is not potential but actual. By Scriptures own definitions you can't have an "ineffective atonement"
5. Effects - Propitiation, Reconciliation, and Redemption are all immediate consequences of Atonement. Scripture knows nothing of Atonement without reconciliation. Therefore we are left with either universalism (which is a heresy) or particular redemption. If Christ's work was truly atoning, you can't have a man judged for what was atoned for.

Now, with an understanding of the nature of the atonement and the doctrines to which it is closely related, I approach these "contradicting" passages. I believe particular redemption is the only position which is in keeping with the analogy of faith which is central to the interpretation of Scripture.

In closing, I would like to note that everyone believes in "Limited Atonement"; the only question is "how is it limited?" It is either limited in its POWER ([Arminianism] because it cannot save without the addition of something else) or in its SCOPE (Calvinism). "Particular redemption" is a much better term.

[ February 16, 2002: Message edited by: Mikayehu ]

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by tyndale1946:
You stated that Arminianism cannot save without the addition of something and then you added the written word as the means to that salvation. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Dont' complain too loudly. Peter and Paul beat Mikeyehu to it a long time ago as I showed earlier.

Limited atonement does not deny or compromise the necessity of the gospel message to salvation and neither does the necessity of the gospel message compromise or deny limited atonement. We are not saying that the gospel message is efficacious to appease God's wrath. We are saying that no one knows of Christ or his need of Christ apart from it. The gospel message is absolutely necessary for man to know to believe in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Pastor Larry:


The gospel message is absolutely necessary for man to know to believe in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Amen. Thank you.

A good and gracious and wise God certainly has the right to determine how he will bring life unto His elect for whom His Son died. If He chose the preaching of the Gospel, who are we to quibble with Him?

As for the thief on the cross, I can only say this: I did not, with my physical eyes, see my Savior dying for my sins, as he did. But I have seen Him there with eyes of faith; as God can, and for this sinner did, make me able to see through the reading and preaching of His Word by the life-giving power of the Holy Spirit.

[ February 16, 2002: Message edited by: TimothyW ]

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by tyndale1946:


You stated that Arminianism cannot save without the addition of something and then you added the written word as the means to that salvation. I will take the Living Word that paid for my sins and hear all about how it was accomplished from the written word. I guess those who never hear the Gospel preached are just out of luck and are hellbound without a prayer... I don't know about anyone else but that's not how my God works... Brother Glen <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Just for a bit of clarification, my claim was that under the Arminian system, there will be people atoned for who go to hell. I said that is a limit to the atonement's power. Under Calvinism, all those atoned for will certainly be saved (by exercising faith in Christ). Calvinism limits the scope of the atonement.

It is certainly faith in the "Living Word" that saves. As Pastor Larry has pointed out, Paul is clear that this faith cannot come apart from hearing the Gospel. As far as your remark that your God would not condemn those who had never heard the gospel preached (at least this is what I understood you as saying), I see no way around what Paul wrote in Ephesians 2 "Wherefore remember, that ye being in time past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands; That at that time ye were without Christ being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world." My Gentile ancestors, for thousands of years, were without hope, because of God's purpose in separating them from Israel and the covenants. In the same way, those who are not given the message of Jesus Christ (the Gospel) will die without God and without hope. That is a very sobering statement, but it is certainly true.

 

How can you say that someone must hear the gospel before they can be saved? What about the millions of Americans who only have a distorted view of the gospel? How close do you have to be to the true gospel before it counts?

 

This last point also answers what Larry has said about those in "Christian" nations having a "better chance" at salvation. That is no guarantee as the whole record of Israel shows, with the gentiles being more responsive to the Gospel.
What I find funny, is that free-will advocates say anyone can be saved because this seems more fair, and this is criticized, but then here is a Calvinist also arguing based on supposed fairness. In either scenario, it doesn't seem fair to some group, so it seems we are thinking way too much about the issue of why people will be in Hell. Let's just try to get the Gospel out as much as we can.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Christopher:
How can you say that someone must hear the gospel before they can be saved? What about the millions of Americans who only have a distorted view of the gospel? How close do you have to be to the true gospel before it counts?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
We say this because this is exactly Paul's claim: Faith comes by hearing, hearing by the Word of God, the Word of God by a preacher.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by tyndale1946:
Take the book away... What do you have? The Lambs book of life! Take the faith of the saints away... What do you have? The Faith of The Son Of God!... Take the acceptance and rejection of Christ away and what do you have?... Irresistible Grace!... Take the works of man away trying to appease and offended God by his own righteousness and what do you have? The Son Of The Most High God, saving those elected, by the Faith of the Son, impossible to reject by his chosen, secured for all eternity in Heaven... Brother Glen <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> You are drawing a dichotomy where one can't be drawn. If you take away the acceptance of Christ, what you're left with is a lost man. That is Scriptures' teaching. What Calvinists' believe is that God's election assures that faith. But again, the bottom line is that Christ is the object of saving faith. The person and work of Christ is revealed to man in the "gospel." No gospel, no knowledge of Christ; no knowledge of Christ, no faith in Christ; no faith in Christ, no salvation (of course we can also place here no irresistable grace, no faith in Christ ).

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Eric B:
That is no guarantee as the whole record of Israel shows, with the gentiles being more responsive to the Gospel.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

What makes you think the Gentiles are more receptive? I don't see any evidence of that.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>What I find funny, is that free-will advocates say anyone can be saved because this seems more fair, and this is criticized, but then here is a Calvinist also arguing based on supposed fairness. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This doesn't make sense. Not sure what you are trying to say here. It doesn't appear to have to do with limited atonement though so if you want to pursue this, then start a thread with it.

 

Trusting in God's sovereign election saves no one. This concept was Calvin's human error. Trusting in Christ is the defining moment in a person's life. After all election is determined by human beings, otherwise, God speaking through the Apostle Peter would not have said, to be watchful and to ' . . . make your calling and election sure; for if ye do these things, ye shall never fall.' If election comes via Divine fiat, then this would be foolish to pen these inerrent words coming from the Lord God.

"Ray"

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Ray Berrian:
Trusting in God's sovereign election saves no one.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The more you say, the more you seem totally out of touch with the issues involved. I am beginning to wonder if you have stuided this issue at all. No one trusts in God's sovereign election for salvation.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>After all election is determined by human beings, otherwise, God speaking through the Apostle Peter would not have said, to be watchful and to ' . . . make your calling and election sure; for if ye do these things, ye shall never fall.' If election comes via Divine fiat, then this would be foolish to pen these inerrent words coming from the Lord God.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

God did not say to elect yourself. Consider 2 Thess 2:13: God has chosen you from the beginning for salvation through sanctification by the Spirit and faith in the truth.

This is a foolish thing to say if God doesn't do the choosing. 2 Peter 1 does not say that we do the choosing. It says that we confirm to ourselves -- or make sure or evident -- our election by our growth. At least that's what hte passage plainly says.

Furthermore, where in Scripture does it say that election is determined by human beings? You keep saying this but you have yet to give a verse for it. I dropped it earlier when you refused to back up your position from Scripture. I bring up here again because you have not.

Total depravity prevents man from electing God. He chooses only himself.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by tyndale1946:
The point I was trying to make was take everything away and all you are left with is Christ... All Christ and nothing but Christ.
The will is the Sovereign Will of God, the love is the Sovereign Love of God, the irresistible grace is the irresistible grace of God. Bestowed on the elect of God according to his own purpose and grace... Brother Glen <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You cannot "take away everything but Christ" as you would argue. Belief is necessary. You cannot simply ignore the passages you don't like. God has ordained to save his elect by enabling them to believe. It does not add to Christ in anyway.

 

They were in the beginning ("He came unto His own, and His own received Him not", etc.) This was the real "hardening" (national) spoken of in Rom.9
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> This doesn't make sense. Not sure what you are trying to say here. It doesn't appear to have to do with limited atonement though so if you want to pursue this, then start a thread with it. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
This was a passing statement. Just that it is a double standard to criticize free-will for arguing on "fairness" when election is being argued on fairness (to those in non-Christian environments) as well.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Eric B:
This was a passing statement. Just that it is a double standard to criticize free-will for arguing on "fairness" when election is being argued on fairness (to those in non-Christian environments) as well.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Wasn't aware that anyone was arguing about "fairness." Whatever ...

 

Pastor Larry,

After a thorough study you will find that all of God's electing in eternity past was based on humankind's response to the offer of grace through the Son. Foreknowledge was the pivotal factor in deciding who to destine to everlasting life with the Son, or an endless life with the Prince of darkness. The Greek word for foreknowledge is the same as our English word, prognosis. In the medical field the physician makes a prognosis of the patients condition, he does not inflict the life threatening disease. The Lord has made the prognosis of every human being without inflicting the ‘second death on anyone' through His alleged, autocratic machinations. God always knew the bottom line of how people would respond to the call of the holy Gospel. This view demonstrates God's fairness toward His creation, while not blaspheming His goodness and Divine justice by autocratically choosing the majority to Hell and the remnant, saved to endless life with the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.

For the sake of anyone not familiar with the use of James Strong's Concordance I will suggest you look on page 60 under Greek Dictionary of the New Testament on the last few pages of the concordance. The middle column number 4267 & 4268 indicates that ‘prognosis' means to know beforehand, forethought or foresee.

All of Christ's predestinating of the saved and the lost was filtered through His foreseeing either belief and unbelief in the lives of human beings.

Note Romans 8:29;11:2; Acts 2:23; I Peter 1:2 & I Peter 1:20.

Your reference coming from II Thessalonians 2:13 is interesting because the Word says, that ‘. . . God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth.' The choosing was posited on the basis of ‘belief of the truth.' Once someone truly believes in Jesus Christ then the Spirit of God begins His Divine work in the human heart called sanctification. It is a most wonderful truth that all Christians have been chosen by God unto everlasting life.

For people to say that the Lord sovereignly elects the majority of people to Hell is to make the Lord a Collaborator or ally with the Evil One. The Devil wants everyone in Hell; and according to this Calvinistic, quasi-theology the Lord is actively involved bringing about the same end result. Apparently, these two rival foes are not really the adversaries that we all have been taught down through the years.

Dr. Berrian

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Ray Berrian:
After a thorough study you will find that all of God's electing in eternity past was based on humankind's response to the offer of grace through the Son. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Then it should be no problem for you to cite a verse that supports it.

Ray, you claim a ThD. Why can't you understand simple English? I have asked you numerous times for a verse supporting this conclusion. One simple verse is all that is necessary. You say that a thorough study will lead me to this conclusion. If it is in Scripture, then you should have no problem giving a passage where it is taught. Yet you consistently refuse to do that. Why? You and I both know why. You refuse to give a verse because you don't have one.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The Greek word for foreknowledge is the same as our English word, prognosis. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No it is not. And you have tried this argtument before. It didn't work then and it was answered scripturally. It won't work now. One verse that disproves your theory (among others) is Romans 11:2: God foreknew his people. That very clearly refers to a choice God made, not a reaction of God to Israel's choosing him. Deut 7:7-8 back up this truth that God chose Israel. It was not IIsrael that chose God.

I again ask why, if you have a ThD, are you citing Strong's? Strong's is a very minimalistic gloss. You should be citing something more substantial than that. When you look at the lexical works, all of them clearly cite foreordination as a meaning of this word.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Your reference coming from II Thessalonians 2:13 is interesting because the Word says, that ‘. . . God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth.' The choosing was posited on the basis of ‘belief of the truth.' <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is abominable exegesis. Salvation comes through sanctification of the Spirit and belief in the truth. It is not the election that does. You know better than this.

You have strayed from limited atonement. Please steer your comments back to that topic or desist from posting.

[ February 17, 2002: Message edited by: Pastor Larry ]