Since “elect” is synonymous with “saved” (justified),
@atpollard
Is it? Let's say Mike is among the Elect. But Mike is 2 weeks old and does not have faith. God knows Mike WILL be given faith on October 23, 2054 but he does not have faith now. So Mike is among the Elect but does not have faith (yet). Is he saved?
Neither “Limited” nor “Unlimited” Atonement is particularly useful for salvation at all.
Well.....
"Jesus died for all" (what some Reformed call "Universal Atonement") means that justification is THERE (real, not a phantom) for all. So if there is faith, it is embracing something real, something there, something FOR THEM. "Jesus died ONLY for some few" means that no one can know for whom Jesus died, God never sent down a list of the lucky few. So, when speaking with someone who does not believe, it is impossible to know whether God loves THEM or Christ died for THEM or if there is forgiveness for THEM. It MIGHT be, but it's far more likely that it's not. Now, those who hold to this will theorize that the lucky few Jesus died for will be given faith, but there's nothing in Scripture (or history) that remotely states that. I think it is reasonable to say that the Elect will be given faith but there is nothing in Scripture that says Jesus only died for the Elect.
Now, there is a sense in which I agree with you. In terms of PERSONAL justification, you are right. If one has faith in the Cross for them, then they are personally justified. If Jesus died for all (as the Bible states), then the presence of faith (no matter how weak) does guarantee personal justification because the Cross IS for them personally (it's for everyone) - no need to worry about the quality of the faith (all the "genuine" emphasis in Calvinism) because the point is the certainly of the Cross - it IS for THEM. In TULIP theology, one can only HOPE that their faith is "genuine" and "comes from God" and will be present at the moment of death... AND that it is embracing something that's real and present FOR THEM.
I agree with what you have often posted here at CH: Of all the points of TULIP, the "L" is the most controversial. I think it's also the least biblical and least accepted by Reformed Christians. My wife's family are all Reformed, going back nearly 500 years in Scottish history, including a lot of ministers. None of her family accepts the "L" and in truth, the "interpret" several other parts of TULIP in a different way than I sense was originally meant. But yes, Limited Atonement is a point they flat out reject. All of them, that I know of.
“Elect” is a synonym for “saved”.
So, does this mean that you (like Dave and Doran here supporting Limited Atonement) believe that faith is irrelevant to personal justification? That IF Christ died for you (and odds are, He did not) then you ARE saved - whether you have faith or not? This, I realize as do you, is exactly where a lot of Reformed Christians went, giving birth to the Universalist Church (New England is heavily populated by Universalist Churches that started as TULIP Reformed churches). I trust not. I trust that you hold that there is no personal justification apart from faith. But the Elect are chosen before Creation, indeed before the person is born, in the womb they are Elect in every sense. So, if the child dies a few days before birth without faith but is among the Elect, are they saved without faith? OR is there some period (perhaps decades long) when the Elect are NOT personally justified because God has not yet given them faith? Can one be Elect but not saved? I sense you'll try to say the question is irrelevant, but I think not. It matters to soteriology (is faith essential or not) and to ministry (should we announce the Gospel and forgiveness to this person because they are Elect or not because we have no evidence that they are Elect?
But ultimately, even if we accept all the (biblically absent) theories of TULIP Christians to get around all this, we are still left with this: For personal Justification ("subjective justification" in classical theology), TWO things are essential: The Cross and faith. Both, we agree, are 100% the work and gift of God. You an theorize and HOPE that faith is "genuine" AND that it is grasping something that is for THEM; and never know if faith is genuine and if the Cross is for them. But in traditional (and IMO clearly biblical) theology, the Cross is the point and it is "there" for ALL. Faith simply trusts what IS there for THEM (because the Bible and Council says it's there for ALL). The emphasis is placed on something objective and historical and stated repeatedly in Scripture, rather than a HOPE (which isn't likely) and on the quality of one's faith.
Do Catholics really believe that a person cannot know if they are “born again”? Redeemed? A child of God? Saved?
As a former Catholic, the typical answer is Baptism. In the Sacrament of Holy Baptism, "initial grace" is infused - and they become "a child of God" and are given the Holy Spirit. They have a (radically) changed relationship with God. This is essentially what you Baptist mean by "Born again." It's just Catholics have something OBJECTIVE to point to (with photos and all!) whereas Baptists have to wonder if their reciting of The Sinner's Prayer was genuine or not. Except for TULIP Baptists, Catholics and (most) Baptists agree that this faith needs nourishment and that it can be repudiated, they can fall from faith. Lutherans are similar to Catholics on this point.
As I understand it, our Catholic brother here is not accurately giving the Catholic pov. Being registered in a parish owned and operated by The Catholic Church does NOT mean ergo that person is "born again" or saved. It means: 1) They are a part of the Church of Christ in its fullest sense and more importantly 2) They have the purist and fullest access to the means of grace whereby the Spirit gives and strengthens faith. The Catholic Church recognizes the Baptism of all Trinitarian churches (including Protestants) and acknowledge that the Word presented in other churches can and is used by the Holy Spirit - but for all the means, in all their power- they need to be from itself, The Catholic Church. For example, receiving Communion in a Lutheran Church is pretty useless but has GREAT spiritual blessing if in The Catholic Church (and well, EOC's too).
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.
It is a matter of faith. Christians accept the Gospel that Jesus died for all (thus also them) and that faith in that Cross for them means they have personal justification (regardless of how they 'feel' about anything). The Cross is objectively true (we believe!) and faith is objectively true (we believe). But yes, ultimately, as in all spiritual matters (and ultimately, ALL matters) there is Kierkegaards' proverbial "leap of faith."
I'm not so passionately against TULIP because I sense it all flows from a very, very strong sense of Monergism. And I share that. I just think it goes way too far - and creates a lot more problems than it solves. I recall two statements: The first from my doctrine teacher who said, "Heretics rarely get into trouble by saying too little, they get into trouble by saying too much." And a Greek Orthodox priest who posted at a website, "The only problem with the Western Church is that it doesn't know how to shut up." It seems to me, there is an almost irresistible urge among some to make everything "logical", to "connect the dots" and they appoint self to do that - and often end up with something "neat" but contradicting what God says. I tend to hold that God probably is smarter about all this than all the world's Christians put together... and that we are called to believe, not correct... to be stewards of the Mysteries of God not connectors of the dots. But that's me.
Blessings on your Christmas season.
- Josiah
.
