How silly.
NO, "all" is not the same as "not all but only a limited few."
As you yourself stated.... as several Reformed websites state (I quoted them for you).... as my Reformed doctrine book states (I quoted it for you), YOU ARE RIGHT; The "L" of TULIP is that Jesus did NOT (N.O.T.) did NOT (dogmatically), did NOT die for all but rather, instead, just for a limited few. That's the "L" just as you yourself said (you even entitled your thread on the part of TULIP): "Jesus died only for the church."
I realize, when you read all those many verses that state Christ died for "all" you just substitute "NOT for all but rather for just a few" and that may be what you are doing to my posts, but that is not what I mean.
Friend, this part of TULIP is a rebuke of the Arminian point that Jesus died for all, it is meant to be a repudiation of Jesus dying for all. It was never written to say "Oh, you Arminianists are absolutely 100% right about that!" No, it is a rebuke of that. It is what you yourself have been saying, it is what you entitled a thread, "Jesus did NOT die for all - NOT - but only for a limited few."
It is silly to insist that "all" and "NOT all but just a few" is the same teaching.... and that Calvinism and Arminianism are in full agreement on the point of Jesus dying for all.
Yup. TULIP makes Election about the Cross - how limited Jesus is. The Council of Orange made it about faith. TULIP is in conflict with the Council of Orange.
And yes, this not only is unbiblical but creates a terror. As noted above -
1. It means NO ONE can even guess whether they are saved or not, whether they are heaven-bound or not, whether they are forgiven. After all, odds are, Jesus has NOTHING for them - no love, no mercy, no forgiveness, no nothing - just an empty promise.
2. It means that NO ONE can proclaim to ANYONE (including the one each sees in the mirror) that Jesus died for them, that Jesus is their Savior. Because in radical Calvinism, He's probably not. It would be a bold faced lie.
3. It makes faith irrelevant, which is why our Reformed brother here rejects any position that includes it. In traditional, orthodox Christianity, it is the OBJECT of faith that is the issue (not whether Jesus is offering them something real or a cruel joke). Where faith is IN CHRIST, then it is effectual and salvation is theirs. No if, ands or buts about it. BECAUSE Jesus is the Savior of all, BECAUSE Jesus died for all, therefore I KNOW I'm included... and I don't have to wonder if the object of my faith is actually REAL or for ME (after all, in TULIP, odds are, He's NOT my Savior, He's offering me NOTHING but a cruel joke, an empty promise). One then has to WONDER (endlessly) if their faith is "of God" or not since the object of it has become irrelevant. TULIP changes the issue of whether faith is in Christ (an easy question any can answer) OR is "from God" (a question no one can ever answer).
4. Radical Calvinism had to invent a lot of new dogmas, forced into it. Including that God has TWO calls: One general and one "secret." The first is actually a lie.... a false promise, a cruel joke... calling people to Jesus as their Savior BUT He's actually NOT their Savior, He's offering them NOTHING, it's just a false promised. The "Secret" call to those "secret" people for whom Jesus actually is offering something REAL (rather than fake) is the one that is not a joke. Of course, no one can know who that "limited few" for whom Christ died actually are.... whether the "call" is real, offering something actually for them, or a fake, a fraud, a very cruel joke because there's nothing for them.
That's just 4 of the reasons....
It seems Calvin preached a comforting faith based on the Gospel, and these few, radical, latter-day followers turned it into a terror.
.
