Round 587 of the Is the L of Tulip godly or demonic?

[MoreCoffee]

I imagine that most folk have decided one way or the other if Limited Atonement is a godly doctrine of grace unmitigated or a demonic slander against the loving and good God who revealed himself in Jesus Christ. But perhaps another round of the eternal battle is called for.

 

[Messy]

Didn't Calvin make that up when he was unable to convert ppl and wondered why, so instead of thinking hey maybe they dont want to listen to a preacher who is not sorry that he gets ppl killed, lets blame God.

 

[tango]

I think you're being very discriminatory there MC. Why so much love for L? Do you hate T?

 

[Lanman87]

I've stayed out of this fray because to me it is a theological argument not a practical argument.

Here is my take.

• God saves all who have a saving faith in Christ because of the sufficient sacrifice on the cross and the overcoming of death through the resurrection.
• All whom God saves are the elect.
• We don't know who will or will not be saved therefore we preach/teach and proclaim the gospel to everyone in the hopes that everyone will come to a saving faith in Christ.
• All of those who do not place their faith in Christ are not saved and are not part of the elect.

From this perspective, it doesn't really matter if someone "becomes elect" when they come to faith or if they "come to faith" because they are elect. Our charge is the same either way. To proclaim the good news in expectation that some will receive the news with gladness then believe and repent and live by faith. And mourn and pray for those who reject the gospel in the hopes that they will also come to a saving faith in Christ before it is to late and they enter eternity without being "in Christ".

In other words, why does it really matter? I can think of only a couple of things it could influence. Maybe if someone is a hyper-Calvinist to the point that they don't believe in evangelism and refuse to proclaim the gospel and maybe if someone goes the other way and becomes a universalist and believes that everyone will be saved.

For the rest of us who believe in preaching the Gospel to everyone and that the only way for salvation is by Faith through Grace then, at least in my opinion, it is a silly argument that only takes energy away from Loving God, Proclaiming the Gospel and showing the love of Christ to a broken world through our faithful following of Christ.

 

[Josiah]

@MoreCoffee @Lanman87 @prism


Some very important things about that "L"....


1. The dogma that Jesus died ONLY for some unknown few (the "L" of TULIP) was invented by a couple of radical, latter-day Calvinists (who actually disagreed with Calvin at several critical points) who were reacting to some equally radical latter-day "free-will" Arminianists. Point-by-point, they simply said the opposite of whatever those free-will dudes stated. But the opposite of a wrong isn't necessary right (or biblical).


2. The basis of the "L" is a question: "Why would Jesus die for someone who isn't going to benefit from it?" Okay, it's fine to ask questions but questions are not proof of anything (other than the ability to ask it). God is love. Love sometimes isn't logical. Unconditional love may do things that aren't conditional or appreciated or even change things. Questions aren't apologetics - in anything. And for those who believe that the Bible is the norma normans, they are irrelevant.... IRRELEVANT.


3. Undeniably, the Bible repeatedly, flat-out, verbatim, word-for-word STATES that Jesus died for all, for everyone. It does not say that all ergo are saved (indeed, it insists that FAITH is essential - and that not all have faith). It seems to be one of the most clear, most certain, most undeniable teachings in the Bible. Now, IF there were verses that flat-out stated. "Jesus died ONLY for ____________" then we'd have a problem and would need to find some way to resolve this (or simply permit the tension) but there is nothing - not one verse - that indicates that.


4. These radical, latter-day Calvinists made a very critical, very fundamental mistake (one we often see among latter-day Calvinists). It's the elimination of the role of faith, the teaching that the ONLY THING that matters in personal justification is whether Christ died for you or not. People don't go to heaven for one and only one reason: Christ did not die for them. This ignores the clear biblical teaching that faith is also necessary (John 3:16 etc). But these Calvinists were SO anti-Arminianists that ANY mention of faith was simply eliminated so as to not appear to suggest free-will.


5. This is a HORRIBLE, terrifying teaching. If Jesus died for ONLY some.... and this "some" is never identified.... and is likely quite few (some Calvinists put it at 1%, some as high as 20% of all humans) then how can I possibly know the He did for me? Is faith embracing something that is for me? The odds are clearly that He did NOT die for me... and what is extended to ME (by Christ, by Scripture, by Christians) is likely not FOR me, not available to me. I can never know.... but if I think it IS for me, I'm probably wrong. And Christ, Scripture and Christians are dishonest (and cruel) to suggest it is when it probably isn't (or at least there is no way to know if it is). "A terror of the conscience" as detractors call the "L" Niw, some will try to get around this by saying that faith confirms this, but this just adds to the terror and uncertainty because how do I know my faith is from God and not something I created, how do I know it's "GENUINE" and from God? Which is the MESS these folks get into with "Once Saved, Always Saved" with the critical question of whether our faith is GENUINE or not; how can one know since they don't? But there is comfort is knowing that Jesus died for ALL (and therefore, for ME). The ONLY certain, objective way to know Jesus died for ME is either 1) MY full name is listed in the Bible as one for whom Jesus died or 2) Jesus died for all humans and since I'm a human, well..... There IS something real and "there" for faith to embrace, rely upon and apply.


Blessings on your Holy Week...


- Josiah



.

 

[Messy]

He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world” (1 John 2:1-2)

Leviticus 16
Aaron shall lay both his hands on the head of the live goat, confess over it all the iniquities of the children of Israel, and all their transgressions, concerning all their sins, putting them on the head of the goat, and shall send it away into the wilderness by the hand of a suitable man. 22 The goat [d]shall bear on itself all their iniquities to an [e]uninhabited land; and he shall release the goat in the wilderness.

This shall be an everlasting statute for you, to make atonement for the children of Israel, for all their sins, once a year.”

I was looking for some text that the Messiah at least came for Israel and they were the elect, so there's no way He died for this one Israelite and not the other one, when even in the O.T. as a shadow it was for them all.

 

[Lanman87]

@MoreCoffee @Lanman87 @prism


Some very important things about that "L"....


1. The dogma that Jesus died ONLY for some unknown few (the "L" of TULIP) was invented by a couple of radical, latter-day Calvinists (who actually disagreed with Calvin at several critical points) who were reacting to some equally radical latter-day "free-will" Arminianists. Point-by-point, they simply said the opposite of whatever those free-will dudes stated. But the opposite of a wrong isn't necessary right (or biblical).


2. The basis of the "L" is a question: "Why would Jesus die for someone who isn't going to benefit from it?" Okay, it's fine to ask questions but questions are not proof of anything (other than the ability to ask it). God is love. Love sometimes isn't logical. Unconditional love may do things that aren't conditional or appreciated or even change things. Questions aren't apologetics - in anything. And for those who believe that the Bible is the norma normans, they are irrelevant.... IRRELEVANT.


3. Undeniably, the Bible repeatedly, flat-out, verbatim, word-for-word STATES that Jesus died for all, for everyone. It does not say that all ergo are saved (indeed, it insists that FAITH is essential - and that not all have faith). It seems to be one of the most clear, most certain, most undeniable teachings in the Bible. Now, IF there were verses that flat-out stated. "Jesus died ONLY for ____________" then we'd have a problem and would need to find some way to resolve this (or simply permit the tension) but there is nothing - not one verse - that indicates that.


4. These radical, latter-day Calvinists made a very critical, very fundamental mistake (one we often see among latter-day Calvinists). It's the elimination of the role of faith, the teaching that the ONLY THING that matters in personal justification is whether Christ died for you or not. People don't go to heaven for one and only one reason: Christ did not die for them. This ignores the clear biblical teaching that faith is also necessary (John 3:16 etc). But these Calvinists were SO anti-Arminianists that ANY mention of faith was simply eliminated so as to not appear to suggest free-will.


5. This is a HORRIBLE, terrifying teaching. If Jesus died for ONLY some.... and this "some" is never identified.... and is likely quite few (some Calvinists put it at 1%, some as high as 20% of all humans) then how can I possibly know the He did for me? Is faith embracing something that is for me? The odds are clearly that He did NOT die for me... and what is extended to ME (by Christ, by Scripture, by Christians) is likely not FOR me, not available to me. I can never know.... but if I think it IS for me, I'm probably wrong. And Christ, Scripture and Christians are dishonest (and cruel) to suggest it is when it probably isn't (or at least there is no way to know if it is). "A terror of the conscience" as detractors call the "L" Niw, some will try to get around this by saying that faith confirms this, but this just adds to the terror and uncertainty because how do I know my faith is from God and not something I created, how do I know it's "GENUINE" and from God? Which is the MESS these folks get into with "Once Saved, Always Saved" with the critical question of whether our faith is GENUINE or not; how can one know since they don't? But there is comfort is knowing that Jesus died for ALL (and therefore, for ME). The ONLY certain, objective way to know Jesus died for ME is either 1) MY full name is listed in the Bible as one for whom Jesus died or 2) Jesus died for all humans and since I'm a human, well..... There IS something real and "there" for faith to embrace, rely upon and apply.


Blessings on your Holy Week...


- Josiah



.

As I said, it is a theological argument that, for the majority of Christianity, has little bearing on how we practically live out the gospel.

I've known several 5 point Calvinist who were very Evangelical. They shared the gospel and called people to repentance and faith every bit as much as non-Calvinist. Jonathan Edwards and C.H. Spurgeon come to mind as two historical Calvinist who boldly preached the gospel and large numbers of people came to faith under their preaching.

To me, the only time this becomes an "issue to die on" is when someone uses the doctrine of limited atonement or predestination and election, which are closely related, as an excuse to not preach the gospel, call people to come to faith, and live a life of repentance. Or, on the flip side, teach a universalism that "Christ died for all" therefore "all will be saved".

Ultimately, what you believe about Limited Atonement will be influenced on what you believe about free will, predestination, and election.

If you believe that God has chosen "the elect" before the foundation of the world and predestined them to come to be "born again" which results in them coming to "faith and repentance" then limited atonement makes a lot more sense.

If you believe that God offers salvation to everyone and therefore hasn't predestined the elect (and only has foreknowledge of who will "choose him") and that salvation is a result of people coming to faith by an act of Prevenient grace and the conviction of the Holy Spirit (that can be accepted or rejected by an act of free will) then universal atonement makes a lot more sense.

My point is, people in both camps preach the gospel, call people to faith and repentance, and equip people to live serve and follow Christ.

In both camps, only those with a saving faith receive the actual atonement of Christ. In that sense, atonement is limited, because not everyone will come to faith and receive the meritorious work of Christ done on their behalf.

My position is that I don't know. All I know is that some people hear the Gospel and are born again and live a life of faith and others don't. If grace is irresistable and everyone who comes to faith is the predestined elect then great. If grace if prevenient and the Holy Spirit convicts someone of the truth and they accept it by an act of free will then that is great as well.

The important thing is that we preach the gospel.

 

[Albion]

My point is, people in both camps preach the gospel, call people to faith and repentance, and equip people to live serve and follow Christ.

Indeed. And those are people who are in step with the churches to which they belong, whether Calvinistic, Catholic, or some other.

The controversy here has been framed by CH members, mainly ones who are not affiliated with any denomination, who are asserting their own personal views that are based on their own Bible studies.

All I know is that some people hear the Gospel and are born again and live a life of faith and others don't. If grace is irresistable and everyone who comes to faith is the predestined elect then great. If grace if prevenient and the Holy Spirit convicts someone of the truth and they accept it by an act of free will then that is great as well.

The important thing is that we preach the gospel.

 

[Josiah]

@Lanman87

I largely agree with you. Most of TULIP is a (relatively) recent invention of a tiny number of latter-day radical Calvinists. It's neither biblical or traditional (affirmed by Christians over the centuries) but an invention. AND as you note, it's a "logical construction" (to use the words my wife's VERY Calvinist family calls it), "IF X is true, then Y is true" kind of thing. While I'm not strictly opposed to "logical constructions", I AM opposed to such when it's flatly unbiblical, when it clearly contradicts Scripture which is CLEARLY the case with the "L" and less so with some other aspects of TULIP. Atpollard is right that TULIP is highly controversial (even among Calvinists/Reformed),and the "L" is THE most controversial aspect of TULIP. Rare (very rare) is the Calvinist who "buys" it in its classic form (the usual spin is "Jesus' death is EFFECTUAL only for the elect" a whole different enchilada than "Jesus died only for the Elect." No one disagrees with the common re-interpretation of the "L" but it's actually a repudiation of the "L" dogma.

But I disagree with you that it's moot from a practical perspective. To me, the biggest problem with the "L" is not that it's obviously a direct contradiction of Scripture but that it's TERRIFYING, it destroys any assurance and certainty. It means that no one an know if Jesus died for them, if the Gospel is even available to them and their faith. I've addressed this several times - see point 5 in post 5 above. My very Calvinist family agrees with me on this point and it's also what troubles them.


Blessings on your Holy Week.


- Josiah



.

 

[Messy]

When Spring comes I send you Calvinistic tulips.

 

[Josiah]

When Spring comes I send you Calvinistic tulips.

@Messy


LOL...

Years ago, at "the website that shall not be named" (the one a LOT of us came from), there was a Presbyterian who posted, "Truth is, nearly all Presbyterians think that tulip is just a pretty flower." To which I rejoiced. Conservative/traditional Reformed (aka Calvinists) tend to be outstanding theologians but long ago abandoned the whole TULIP thing, often sounding a lot more Lutheran than TULIPian (lol).

From what I understand, TULIP was created by a couple of very radical Calvinists (who actually disagreed with Calvin on several key issues) as a DIRECT, one-to-one, rebuttal of some radical, crazy things invented by radical Arminianists; TULIP is just the opposite of their (wrong) ideas. Thing is, the opposite of a wrong isn't necessarily a right (and certainly not necessarily biblical). Today, either the whole "logical construct" of TULIP (as a repudiation of Arminianism) has been abandoned OR simply given a very different spin that affirms rather than rejects the Bible and traditional/orthodox/conservative Christianity.


Oh, and I completely agree: there certainly is a lot of mystery here. We simply don't know EXACTLY how everything "fits" and "cranks out." Until about 500 years ago, people didn't speak so much of "doctrine" or "theology" but as "the holy mysteries." I think it wise to "let God have the last word" and "leave it where God does" (to use two common Lutheran expressions). Overthinking... forcing.... answering the questions of self by self and declaring that God has to agree.... these get us into much trouble. Sometimes there is value in shutting up.



Blessings on your Holy Week.


Josiah


.

 

[MoreCoffee]

I think you're being very discriminatory there MC. Why so much love for L? Do you hate T?

Verily Verily, T is quite wicked too.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Here is my take.

• God saves all who have a saving faith in Christ because of the sufficient sacrifice on the cross and the overcoming of death through the resurrection.
• All whom God saves are the elect.
• We don't know who will or will not be saved therefore we preach/teach and proclaim the gospel to everyone in the hopes that everyone will come to a saving faith in Christ.
• All of those who do not place their faith in Christ are not saved and are not part of the elect.

That's fairly innocuous. But you are treading on thin ice with the word "elect" used in that way. I prefer to think of the elect as those who the Church intends to receive into baptism, having examined them after they have been catechised.

Salvation is complex to describe and define the moment one goes beyond this, (John 3:17) "When God sent his Son into the world, it was not to reject the world, but so that the world might find salvation through him."✻

‘To reject’; the word here used in the Greek may mean ‘to judge’ or ‘to separate’, and is perhaps used here with a certain play of sense upon the two meanings.​

And salvation appears to be the main theme in what you wrote. It is better, in my opinion, to treat calling and election in their earthly manifestations which we can hear, see, and witness than it is to concentrate on the final salvation of souls, into which topic we have no personal and direct insight as far as other people are concerned.

 

[MoreCoffee]

it doesn't really matter if someone "becomes elect" when they come to faith or if they "come to faith" because they are elect. Our charge is the same either way. To proclaim the good news in expectation that some will receive the news with gladness then believe and repent and live by faith. And mourn and pray for those who reject the gospel in the hopes that they will also come to a saving faith in Christ before it is to late and they enter eternity without being "in Christ".

In other words, why does it really matter? I can think of only a couple of things it could influence. Maybe if someone is a hyper-Calvinist to the point that they don't believe in evangelism and refuse to proclaim the gospel and maybe if someone goes the other way and becomes a universalist and believes that everyone will be saved.

On the whole I agree.

 

[MoreCoffee]

For the rest of us who believe in preaching the Gospel to everyone and that the only way for salvation is by Faith through Grace then, at least in my opinion, it is a silly argument that only takes energy away from Loving God, Proclaiming the Gospel and showing the love of Christ to a broken world through our faithful following of Christ.

I have some doubts concerning the phrase "salvation is by Faith through Grace", but mainly because it is so often concatenated with "alone" or some similar word to mean that one's way of life, faithfulness, and deeds play absolutely no role in one's final judgement at the end of the ages; and here I am thinking of Matthew 25:31-46

31 When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit down upon the throne of his glory,
32 and all nations will be gathered in his presence, where he will divide men one from the other, as the shepherd divides the sheep from the goats;
33 he will set the sheep on his right, and the goats on his left.
34 Then the King will say to those who are on his right hand, Come, you that have received a blessing from my Father, take possession of the kingdom which has been prepared for you since the foundation of the world.
35 For I was hungry, and you gave me food, thirsty, and you gave me drink; I was a stranger, and you brought me home,
36 naked, and you clothed me, sick, and you cared for me, a prisoner, and you came to me.
37 Whereupon the just will answer, Lord, when was it that we saw thee hungry, and fed thee, or thirsty, and gave thee drink?
38 When was it that we saw thee a stranger, and brought thee home, or naked, and clothed thee?
39 When was it that we saw thee sick or in prison and came to thee?
40 And the King will answer them, Believe me, when you did it to one of the least of my brethren here, you did it to me.
41 Then he will say to those who are on his left hand, in their turn, Go far from me, you that are accursed, into that eternal fire which has been prepared for the devil and his angels.
42 For I was hungry, and you never gave me food, I was thirsty, and you never gave me drink;
43 I was a stranger, and you did not bring me home, I was naked, and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison, and you did not care for me.
44 Whereupon they, in their turn, will answer, Lord, when was it that we saw thee hungry, or thirsty, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister to thee?
45 And he will answer them, Believe me, when you refused it to one of the least of my brethren here, you refused it to me.
46 And these shall pass on to eternal punishment, and the just to eternal life.​

 

[Messy]

I have some doubts concerning the phrase "salvation is by Faith through Grace", but mainly because it is so often concatenated with "alone" or some similar word to mean that one's way of life, faithfulness, and deeds play absolutely no role in one's final judgement at the end of the ages; and here I am thinking of Matthew 25:31-46

31 When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit down upon the throne of his glory,​

32 and all nations will be gathered in his presence, where he will divide men one from the other, as the shepherd divides the sheep from the goats;​

33 he will set the sheep on his right, and the goats on his left.​

34 Then the King will say to those who are on his right hand, Come, you that have received a blessing from my Father, take possession of the kingdom which has been prepared for you since the foundation of the world.​

35 For I was hungry, and you gave me food, thirsty, and you gave me drink; I was a stranger, and you brought me home,​

36 naked, and you clothed me, sick, and you cared for me, a prisoner, and you came to me.​

37 Whereupon the just will answer, Lord, when was it that we saw thee hungry, and fed thee, or thirsty, and gave thee drink?​

38 When was it that we saw thee a stranger, and brought thee home, or naked, and clothed thee?​

39 When was it that we saw thee sick or in prison and came to thee?​

40 And the King will answer them, Believe me, when you did it to one of the least of my brethren here, you did it to me.​

41 Then he will say to those who are on his left hand, in their turn, Go far from me, you that are accursed, into that eternal fire which has been prepared for the devil and his angels.​

42 For I was hungry, and you never gave me food, I was thirsty, and you never gave me drink;​

43 I was a stranger, and you did not bring me home, I was naked, and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison, and you did not care for me.​

44 Whereupon they, in their turn, will answer, Lord, when was it that we saw thee hungry, or thirsty, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister to thee?​

45 And he will answer them, Believe me, when you refused it to one of the least of my brethren here, you refused it to me.​

46 And these shall pass on to eternal punishment, and the just to eternal life.​

Often ppl who say it's only by grace and not works just mean the same thing. They had so much do this do that preachings, that now it's only grace, but they don't go around breaking the 10 commandments or do other horrible stuff, cause that's just standard. Michael Brown said that if he got a preaching with warnings to not fall away, he did not feel condemned, but some do and they want grace preaching. Only met a few online with extreme ideas. One said you could kill someone, not say sorry, drop dead and you were still once saved always saved.

Christian Gangster

In his book I Surrender, Patrick Morley writes that the church’s integrity problem (O, and we definitely have one!) is in the misconception “that we can add Christ to our lives, but not subtract sin. It is a change in belief without a change in behavior.” He goes on to say, “It is revival...

sermons.faithlife.com

 

[MoreCoffee]

they don't go around breaking the 10 commandments or do other horrible stuff

If only that were so. I watch the news where people say shocking things in support of a particular politician and at the same time say they want Christian family values, and a good number who say the shocking things attend church quite regularly.

 

[Lanman87]

I have some doubts concerning the phrase "salvation is by Faith through Grace", but mainly because it is so often concatenated with "alone" or some similar word to mean that one's way of life, faithfulness, and deeds play absolutely no role in one's final judgement at the end of the ages;

Salvation by faith alone, through grace alone, by Christ alone, to the Glory of God alone... is a topic for another thread. I do affirm the truth that we are saved (past, present, and future) by the work of Christ alone and appropriate or receive that salvation by faith alone because of grace alone and not because we work to merit or earn grace.

If you want to start another thread on this subject then I will happily defend my position. If not, then that is great as well.

 

[Lanman87]

If only that were so. I watch the news where people say shocking things in support of a particular politician and at the same time say they want Christian family values, and a good number who say the shocking things attend church quite regularly.

That is true of people who call themselves Christian in both Catholic and Non-Catholic traditions. Calling oneself a Christian doesn't mean you are one.

 

[Albion]

That is true of people who call themselves Christian in both Catholic and Non-Catholic traditions. Calling oneself a Christian doesn't mean you are one.

That's true, and it certainly shows us that if it were the case that mortals are saved because "they've been good" hardly anyone could be saved.

The reality is that everyone succumbs to the temptation to sin, some more often than others, and some do so in more grievous ways than their neighbors, but it's everyone just the same.

That's the fact, even if they also accomplish much that's helpful, charitable, and God-pleasing while in this world.