For those who hold to TULIP, are any of you non-elect?

[MoreCoffee]

I know it is hard to be sure, and some say it is kind of tempting God to affirm one's assurance of one's own election, but I want to know if any of the Calvinists on CH thinks that they may not be among the elect?

 

[1689Dave]

T.U.L.I.P is an attempt to reconcile Calvin's Universal Atonement with Limited Atonement as taught in scripture. Crafted by the Synod of Dort, only the first 3 points square with the Bible and Limited Atonement. The remaining 2 fit with Universal Atonement.

 

[MoreCoffee]

T.U.L.I.P is an attempt to reconcile Calvin's Universal Atonement with Limited Atonement as taught in scripture. Crafted by the Synod of Dort, only the first 3 points square with the Bible and Limited Atonement. The remaining 2 fit with Universal Atonement.

You reject Irresistible grace and [the] Perseverance of the saints?

 

[1689Dave]

You reject Irresistible grace and [the] Perseverance of the saints?

Points 4 & 5 reflect salvation by works, which God supposedly forces a person to do. Salvation happens before any act of the will ever becomes involved. And Those people believe in Christ and live a holy life because of their new nature. Like a cat does cat things because it's a cat.

 

[atpollard]

I know it is hard to be sure, and some say it is kind of tempting God to affirm one's assurance of one's own election, but I want to know if any of the Calvinists on CH thinks that they may not be among the elect?

The question would be similar to asking any practicing Catholic if they thought they might be a “son of perdition”?
If they were a son of perdition, they would probably not waste time on being a devout Catholic.

In the same way, the fact that one is “wasting their time” seeking God argues against their being one of the “reprobate” (non-Elect). Remember from Ephesians 2:1-3 what those that are children of wrath are like. Remember the Fruit of the Spirit and Acts of the Sinful Nature … sort of hard to conflate the two.

 

[atpollard]

Points 4 & 5 reflect salvation by works, which God supposedly forces a person to do. Salvation happens before any act of the will ever becomes involved. And Those people believe in Christ and live a holy life because of their new nature. Like a cat does cat things because it's a cat.

You have strange notions of what Calvinism teaches.

 

[MoreCoffee]

The question would be similar to asking any practicing Catholic if they thought they might be a “son of perdition”?
If they were a son of perdition, they would probably not waste time on being a devout Catholic.

In the same way, the fact that one is “wasting their time” seeking God argues against their being one of the “reprobate” (non-Elect). Remember from Ephesians 2:1-3 what those that are children of wrath are like. Remember the Fruit of the Spirit and Acts of the Sinful Nature … sort of hard to conflate the two.

Does that mean "all Calvinists are elect"?

 

[Albion]

You have strange notions of what Calvinism teaches.

...and Christianity in general. It takes a while to notice how many mistaken notions have been posted, but it's quite a list!

 

[atpollard]

Does that mean "all Calvinists are elect"?

Are all Catholics part of the Church?

The ”elect” are those saved by the blood of Christ as distinct from the Children of the Devil and God haters of various scriptures (like Romans 1:18-32).

[To answer directly, they all think that they are, just as everyone attending a Catholic Church believes they are Children of God and not sons of perdition. The reality is that many Calvinists and Catholics are probably “wolves in sheep clothing” or “tares among the wheat”, but only Jesus knows which sheep are his.]

 

[MoreCoffee]

To answer directly, they all think that they are

Okay,

Thinking and being are distinct, right?

One may be a Calvinist and think of one's self as elect, but the reality may be different.
That being so, how is Calvinism's concept of Limited Atonement useful?
No one knows for sure, without any doubt, that they are themselves elect.
So, "the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world" may as well mean, "absolutely every individual", as not.
It's something of a mystery who is elect, is it not?

 

[tango]

The question would be similar to asking any practicing Catholic if they thought they might be a “son of perdition”?
If they were a son of perdition, they would probably not waste time on being a devout Catholic.

In the same way, the fact that one is “wasting their time” seeking God argues against their being one of the “reprobate” (non-Elect). Remember from Ephesians 2:1-3 what those that are children of wrath are like. Remember the Fruit of the Spirit and Acts of the Sinful Nature … sort of hard to conflate the two.

I guess posting in World Religions does invite someone who believes that there is a predetermined group called "the elect" that doesn't include them, and hence they don't bother attempting to follow God because it would be a waste of their time.

It would be easy to argue that whatever else they did would be just as much of a waste of their time but at least they'd enjoy their years on earth before facing whatever grim horrors await those who dd not meet whatever criteria were required to be chosen.

 

[Albion]

Are all Catholics part of the Church?

The ”elect” are those saved by the blood of Christ as distinct from the Children of the Devil and God haters of various scriptures (like Romans 1:18-32).

[To answer directly, they all think that they are, just as everyone attending a Catholic Church believes they are Children of God and not sons of perdition. The reality is that many Calvinists and Catholics are probably “wolves in sheep clothing” or “tares among the wheat”, but only Jesus knows which sheep are his.]

Maybe, but Catholics being or thinking that they are part of the Church is not at all parallel to the idea of Calvinists thinking that they are among the Elect (to whatever extent Calvinists do).

 

[1689Dave]

You have strange notions of what Calvinism teaches.

I know what it teaches, but points 1-3 depict limited atonement. 4-5 support Calvin's, coerced by God, works salvation based on his universal atonement beliefs.

 

[atpollard]

One may be a Calvinist and think of one's self as elect, but the reality may be different.

Since “elect” is synonymous with “saved” (justified), is ”Calvinist” any different than “Catholic” in that respect. In other words, is the following statement also true:

“One may be a Catholic and think of one's self as saved, but the reality may be different.”

That being so, how is Calvinism's concept of Limited Atonement useful?

I can only give my opinion on the subject of Atonement, which others can and do disagree with, but:
Neither “Limited” nor “Unlimited” Atonement is particularly useful for salvation at all. Our human opinions on who God should or did die for carries no weight on the GODHEAD. Therefore, Christ atoned for whom Christ atoned irrespective of my thoughts on the matter one way or another.

It is a theologically “philosophical” question (like ‘Could Jesus have sinned?’). If atonement is Universal, then (depending on what one thinks the atonement actually did) Jesus “wasted” his blood on many who will ultimately not be saved and God may punish the same sin twice (as I said, it depends on what one thinks the atonement accomplished). If atonement is “Particular” (the Baptist term for ‘Limited’) then Jesus blood was shed only for His sheep and effectively saved every person for whom it was shed.

However, these are human philosophical arguments that are not binding on God or His redemptive reality … so debates about “Atonement” are both extra-biblical and pointless.

No one knows for sure, without any doubt, that they are themselves elect.

Respectfully, I disagree. “Elect” is a synonym for “saved”. Do Catholics really believe that a person cannot know if they are “born again”? Redeemed? A child of God? Saved?

I cannot speak for others, but from my experience, the transformation was so self-evident that one cannot be “saved/elect/born again/a new creation” and NOT KNOW IT for sure.

 

[atpollard]

It's something of a mystery who is elect, is it not?

Only from the outside looking in.
I cannot see into the heart of another person and know what they believe.
I can examine my own heart and know what I believe.

In that respect, it is no different than knowing which “Catholic” or “Anglican” or “Baptist” is wheat or a tare.
One can only know if YOUR faith is genuine or if YOU are a wolf in sheep’s clothing.

 

[atpollard]

Maybe, but Catholics being or thinking that they are part of the Church is not at all parallel to the idea of Calvinists thinking that they are among the Elect (to whatever extent Calvinists do).

Why not?

I was under the understanding that Catholics view the Church as the Bride of Christ and all of its members as destined for heaven (after a brief tune-up in purgatory, as needed).

How is that not like the Calvinist idea that the Elect are all those that God has chosen to save, the body of Christ, that will join Him in heaven?

 

[Albion]

Why not?

I was under the understanding that Catholics view the Church as the Bride of Christ and all of its members as destined for heaven (after a brief tune-up in purgatory, as needed).

Naaa. Catholics neither believe nor are taught by their church that simply being a member of the church guarantees salvation. They do believe that their denomination is the only one founded by Christ and is, therefore, the only one that is actually complete, authentic, etc.

When we turn to Calvinism and Election, we are not referring to a particular religious institution/church, but rather it's about a theological concept (or several of them) that's not identified with just one particular denomination.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Since “elect” is synonymous with “saved” (justified), is ”Calvinist” any different than “Catholic” in that respect. In other words, is the following statement also true:

“One may be a Catholic and think of one's self as saved, but the reality may be different.”

What you wrote of Catholics is true.
Why didn't you just say that what was written about Calvinists is true?

I can only give my opinion on the subject of Atonement, which others can and do disagree with, but:
Neither “Limited” nor “Unlimited” Atonement is particularly useful for salvation at all. Our human opinions on who God should or did die for carries no weight on the GODHEAD. Therefore, Christ atoned for whom Christ atoned irrespective of my thoughts on the matter one way or another.

That is fair enough.
God sees the end from the beginning yet humans do not.
That is a fundamental difference that Catholics acknowledge.
What is revealed we know and seek to understand. What is secret belongs to God.
Catholics acknowledge mystery and embrace it.

However, these are human philosophical arguments that are not binding on God or His redemptive reality … so debates about “Atonement” are both extra-biblical and pointless.

Amen.
Fundamentally, Let God be true - all else is futility.

 

[1689Dave]

I think very few that profess adherence to the acrostic TULIP are saved. Luther was the first I know of to teach doctrines of that logic. Calvin never taught Limited Atonement. And anyone can use logic to arrive at them without the least change in their heart. So If you can prove and experience the positive effects of Limited Atonement, Points 1-3 will be logically sound. But points 4-5 will not fit.

So technically, I'm not a Calvinist but a baptist up to a point that knows the doctrine of sin and grace as found in scripture.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Are all Catholics part of the Church?

yes.