TULIP is Not Just a Pretty Flower: Radical Calvinism

[atpollard]

Among other places...

1 Timothy 2:4
2 Peter 3:9


Yes, TULIP all appears to be a humanly "logical" construct all to support the assumption that God desires to populate Hell and thus assures it. And yes, since it all goes back to God's decision that Jesus would be meaningless and irrelevant for most people (regardless of whether they have faith or not).
.

MennoSota is correct about those verses. Since I am more familiar with 2 Peter 3, you must recognize that the entire context is about why God has not yet returned and the “not willing that any should perish” is a response pointing out that God delays his return so that all of the elect can be born and hear the gospel and be saved. Nothing in the chapter suggests that it has anything to do with the unsaved world. Is God omnipotent or not? Can the WILL OF GOD be thwarted or not?

Your argument about God desiring to populate Hell is foolish talk.
Will Jesus sacrifice on the cross prevent those who do not believe from going to HELL? A simple “yes” or “no” will suffice.
Calvinism says “NO!”

Will those who do not believe go to HELL? A simple “yes” or “no” will suffice.
Calvinism says “YES!”

Is the path to Heaven ‘narrow’ and travelled by ‘few’ while the path to HELL is ‘wide’ and travelled by ‘many’? A simple “yes” or “no” will suffice.
Calvinism says “YES!”


Since Jesus’ shed blood will not save unbelievers from HELL and many are unbelievers bound for HELL, then to argue that many will not go to HELL is to deny scripture. Do Lutherans deny scripture? Calvinists do not ... we acknowledge that God has chosen to save few and that many will go to Hell?


Two questions for your considerations:

1. Of what benefit is the Blood of Christ to someone who lives and dies an unrepentant unbeliever?
2. As a monergist, does anyone have a saving ‘faith’ (as opposed to a ‘dead faith’) that was not given them by God?

 

[Josiah]

Among other places...

1 Timothy 2:4
2 Peter 3:9
1 John 2:2


Yes, TULIP all appears to be a humanly "logical" construct all to support the assumption that God desires to populate Hell and thus assures it. And yes, since it all goes back to God's decision that Jesus would be meaningless and irrelevant for most people (regardless of whether they have faith or not).


.

MennoSota is correct about those verses. Since I am more familiar with 2 Peter 3, you must recognize that the entire context is about why God has not yet returned and the “not willing that any should perish” is a response pointing out that God delays his return so that all of the elect can be born and hear the gospel and be saved.

Your spin mandates that you delete words in the text and insert "only the elect" instead.


Your "spin" that some modern Calvinists disagree with TULIP and hold that God ONLY "passively" damns some (by choosing not to apply Christ's atoning work to them) is absurd. Calvinism teaches that Jesus died for ONLY A FEW - that was God's desire, that Jesus would NOT be the Savior for most people. That IS a "active" decision - to LIMIT Jesus to a few. Now, assuming that unbiblical and horrible assumption - God desires most to not be saved by exemption most from His grace, mercy and the atoning work of Christ - radical Calvinists thus have to come up with double predestination and OSAS. Again, since these uber-Calvinists insist before Creation God CHOSE that most would be excluded from His grace, mercy, gifts and salvation IS an active choice.
Your argument about God desiring to populate Hell is foolish talk.
Will Jesus sacrifice on the cross prevent those who do not believe from going to HELL? A simple “yes” or “no” will suffice.
Calvinism says “NO!”

Will those who do not believe go to HELL? A simple “yes” or “no” will suffice.

Yes, but that doesn't prove as foundational dogma that THEREFORE God chose to make Jesus meaningless and unavailable to them.... that God didn't mean "world"' in John 3:16 or anything He teaches in 1 Timothy 2:4, 2 Peter 3:9, etc., etc., etc. It doesn't prove that God actively decided that most people would be barred from the atoning work of Jesus. It only means that Sola Gratia - Solus Christus - Sola Fide means that faith is essential.

Since Jesus’ shed blood will not save unbelievers from HELL and many are unbelievers bound for HELL,

No. That's NOT the position of TULIP. Uber-Calvinists do NOT teach that Jesus died for ALL, for the WORLD, that His work is for ALL - but some do not apprehend such by faith. It's that God determined that Christ's work would be for a FEW.... and thus only that FEW would be given faith, that's a POSITIVE determination that most would go to Hell no matter what. Big difference! In one case, Jesus' blood is available but not accepted, in the other there is the determination it would not be available and thus faith (whether present or not) has NOTHING to apprehend, for them Jesus is irrelevant and unavailable - God determined they could not have it. That's active.

Two questions for your considerations:

1. Of what benefit is the Blood of Christ to someone who lives and dies an unrepentant unbeliever?

Again, you are trying to mix theologies..... you are deleting the "L" in TULIP because it destroys your argument. In Calvinism, it is NOT a case that the blood Jesus shed for them proved to be of no avail.... it's that God CHOSE, DECIDED, PREDETERMINED that Jesus' blood would not be shed for them.... they would be left out of the ENTIRELY of soteriology by God's willful intent and desire.... they would go to Hell because grace, mercy, Jesus would not come to them.

2. As a monergist, does anyone have a saving ‘faith’ (as opposed to a ‘dead faith’) that was not given them by God?

Again, that all do not apprehend (and thus benefit) from God's salvation is not proof that Jesus' work was for only a FEW and never available to most, that THEREFORE God desires most to go to Hell - and thus they will go to hell because God chose to make salvation, grace, mercy unavailable to them.

You realize you are mixing issues. If I buy tickets to Disneyland for everyone here at CH.... and only half actually use the tickets.... does NOT prove that therefore I only bought tickets for half of the people here and that my desire is that most not be admitted to Disneyland. '

TULIP is all predicated on the idea that God wants to populate Hell with most people..... and by making Jesus' work irrelevant to most, insures that. As a monergist, you believe that God gives faith - but as a Calvinist, you believe the issue of faith is irrelevant because those for whom the work of Christ is available thus must accept it and for those for whom Christ is irrelevant, faith is irrelevant.




.

 

[Albion]

Well, you are describing the difference between single predestination and double predestination, I think, and rejecting the latter. But if single predestination is selected, it more or less has to follow that Christ did not die for everyone. (?)

 

[Josiah]

Well, you are describing the difference between single predestination and double predestination, I think, and rejecting the latter. But if single predestination is selected, it more or less has to follow that Christ did not die for everyone. (?)

No.


But it does work the opposite way: Limited Atonement thus mandates double predestination since God actively chose that most people (and he names them) WILL go to Hell because nothing will be offered to them, no Savior will be available to them, no Savior will be given for certain people (who will be the majority) Faith wouldn't matter anyway since there is nothing for such faith to grasp or accept. IMO, this is one one of the horrors of TULIP - a person has no way to know if their faith actually means a thing since they have no way to know if they are on the "Jesus didn't die for them" list.


TULIP is a "logical" construction all founded on the very unbiblical (and horrible) assumption that God wants to populate hell by making Jesus the Savior for only a minority of folks, God desiring most to be damned by not having a Savior. This of course flatly contradicting 1 John 2:2, 1 Timothy 2:4, 2 Peter 3:9, etc., etc, etc., etc.


But yes, monergism combined with election does mean there is a MYSTERY here. Jesus told Nicodemus about the wind - we don't know where it comes from or where it is going, it is MYSTERY, and so it is with those born by the Holy Spirit. There's mystery here. Yes, I think the later-day urberCalvinist idea that God desires most to go to Hell and this whole idea of TULIP is very unbiblical (and terrifying).... and I think the opposite, Pelagianism and Arminianism are equally unbiblical and wrong and terrifying... Which just means how this all works is unknown to us... The Spirit does it (which seems to be what Jesus was saying to Nicodemus in John 3).... When we enter those gates of heaven, we have ONE and ONLY ONE to thank - God (Jesus ALONE is the Savior.... the Holy Spirit is the Lord and GIVER of spiritual life) - not ourselves. And if one enters the firey gates of Hell, they have ONE and ONLY ONE to blame - themselves (and IN NO WAY God by excluding them from any other possibility). Does that "answer" why some have faith and some don't? Of course not (any more than Jesus explained to Nicodemus where wind comes from and where it is going). I think here is where Calvinism differs from the rest of Christianity: Others seem willing to embrace humility and mystery (thus the Trinity, the Two Natures of Christ, etc., etc. etc. - for over 1000 years, ALL Christian teaching was simply called "The Holy Mysteries") - the later day uber-Calvinists in a sense mandate that God be subject to human "logic" in much the same way that medieval RC Scholastics made God subject to popular philosophy and pre-science concepts. God calls on us to be "Caretakers of the mysteries of God" not "Make God make sense" or "Invent neat logical answers to your own questions and insist God agrees with it." There is a valid question here - but it doesn't mean that Pelagianism OR some later day uber-Calvinists MUST be right. IMO, it means we have a mystery here..... God works it out, we don't know all the details as to how.



Important stuff....


- Josiah






.

 

[Albion]

No. But it does work the opposite way: Limited Atonement thus mandates double predestination since God actively chose that most people (and he names them) WILL go to Hell because nothing will be offered to them, no Savior will be available to them. Faith wouldn't matter anyway since there is nothing for such faith to grasp or accept. IMO, this is one one of the horrors of TULIP - a person has no way to know if their faith actually means a thing since they have no way to know if they are on the "Jesus didn't die for them" list.

That seems correct to say. I am not sure that it is unthinkable, however, and it certainly is not more frustrating or pathetic or horrifying than what most Christians who say they believe in free will and meritorious works are painting as the situation.

To them, no one has any idea if he is going to be saved either, and that is because no one knows if he has done enough or the right kind of good works and cannot know the answer, right on up to the minute of death.

 

[Josiah]

But it does work the opposite way:

Limited Atonement thus mandates double predestination since God actively chose that most people (and he names them) WILL go to Hell because nothing will be offered to them, no Savior will be available to them, no Savior will be given for certain people (who will be the majority) Faith wouldn't matter anyway since there is nothing for such faith to grasp or accept. IMO, this is one one of the horrors of TULIP - a person has no way to know if their faith actually means a thing since they have no way to know if they are on the "Jesus didn't die for them" list.


TULIP is a "logical" construction all founded on the very unbiblical (and horrible) assumption that God wants to populate hell by making Jesus the Savior for only a minority of folks, God desiring most to be damned by not having a Savior. This of course flatly contradicting 1 John 2:2, 1 Timothy 2:4, 2 Peter 3:9, etc., etc., etc., etc.


But yes, monergism combined with election does mean there is a MYSTERY here. Jesus told Nicodemus about the wind - we don't know where it comes from or where it is going, it is MYSTERY, and so it is with those born by the Holy Spirit. There's mystery here. Yes, I think the later-day urberCalvinist idea that God desires most to go to Hell and this whole idea of TULIP is very unbiblical (and terrifying).... and I think the opposite, Pelagianism and Arminianism are equally unbiblical and wrong and terrifying... Which just means how this all works is unknown to us... The Spirit does it (which seems to be what Jesus was saying to Nicodemus in John 3).... When we enter those gates of heaven, we have ONE and ONLY ONE to thank - God (Jesus ALONE is the Savior.... the Holy Spirit is the Lord and GIVER of spiritual life) - not ourselves. And if one enters the firey gates of Hell, they have ONE and ONLY ONE to blame - themselves (and IN NO WAY God by excluding them from any other possibility). Does that "answer" why some have faith and some don't? Of course not (any more than Jesus explained to Nicodemus where wind comes from and where it is going). I think here is where Calvinism differs from the rest of Christianity: Others seem willing to embrace humility and mystery (thus the Trinity, the Two Natures of Christ, etc., etc. etc. - for over 1000 years, ALL Christian teaching was simply called "The Holy Mysteries") - the later day uber-Calvinists in a sense mandate that God be subject to human "logic" in much the same way that medieval RC Scholastics made God subject to popular philosophy and pre-science concepts. God calls on us to be "Caretakers of the mysteries of God" not "Make God make sense" or "Invent neat logical answers to your own questions and insist God agrees with it." There is a valid question here - but it doesn't mean that Pelagianism OR some later day uber-Calvinists MUST be right. IMO, it means we have a mystery here..... God works it out, we don't know all the details as to how.


.

That seems correct to say.

To them, no one has any idea if he is going to be saved either, and that is because no one knows if he has done enough or the right kind of good works and cannot know the answer, right on up to the minute of death.

There are many problems with BOTH the "free will" Pelagian view and the "Limited Atonement" crowd


BOTH Limited Atonement/Predestination to Hell view and the Pelagian/Arminian/Free Will have the same uncertainty and terror....

For the Free Will folks, there is the uncertainty of whether they've actually performed this good work sufficiently and sincerely enough to merit the reward of salvation... it makes self essentially the Savior and self will always have doubts about self.
For the Limited Atonement folks, there is always the uncertainty that their faith is actually apprehending and trusting in something actually FOR them... Jesus did NOT die more most and they have no way to know if they are in that larger group.

IMO, the biblical position is that where there is faith, there IS justification... faith can be certain of apprehending something for them because it's for all. And it's the OBJECT of such faith that means justification, not the adequate performance of that good work, grace and Christ and faith ALL (inseparably) being the free gift of God, not because of the will or deeds of fallen/dead man but because of the mercy and grace of God (so the Good Book says).


Here's just some of the horror of TULIP: Let's say I I post that I've bought (at great personal expense) tickets for all to go to our gathering in Hawaii. And all are pretty excited about that, and they trust/rely on my promise and accept the tickets I send to them - excited, appreciative, planning accordingly. But when they show up at the airport and up to the gate, MOST discover they were given a dud, a fake, the ticket won't work for THEM. And of course, you won't know until you show up at the gate. Now, it seems strange to argue - as some modern Calvinists do - that planning most tickets to be duds that won't work when folks come to the gate is only PASSIVELY passing over some. Nope, it's eliminating the possibility of their being saved.... And for those who DO have faith, they have no way to know if what they hold is a dud because God never supplied salvation for them but decided they would not get a good ticket.


The Free Will folks never know if they believed right and enough... if their good work actually will be saving (the problem of self looking to self for salvation
The Limited Atonemnet folks never know if their faith does anything because they can't know if God actually chose to offer them anything, if their faith is in a dud.


And of course, BOTH are clearly contrary to Scripture. They are logical constructs that are against Scripture. The first starts with fallen man being good.... the second with God being bad. Both are wrong.




- Josiah

.




.

 

[atpollard]

Sadly, you refuse to accept that Calvinism teaches what it actually teaches and you insist on claiming that what Reformed theology has always taught is “my spin”.

The alternative to Limited Atonement (that the blood of Jesus does not effect the forgiveness of all sin of all people) is Universalism (the Blood of Jesus forgives all sins of all people so everyone will go to heaven). What YOU call “Mystery”, I call avoiding the conversation.

 

[Albion]

Sadly, you refuse to accept that Calvinism teaches what it actually teaches and you insist on claiming that what Reformed theology has always taught is “my spin”.
do
The alternative to Limited Atonement (that the blood of Jesus does not effect the forgiveness of all sin of all people) is Universalism (the Blood of Jesus forgives all sins of all people so everyone will go to heaven). What YOU call “Mystery”, I call avoiding the conversation.

No, that isn't correct...and it isn't a criticism of Calvinist theology to say so.

It is just that the opposite of limited atonement is not universal salvation but, rather, the chance for everyone to hear the Gospel, accept Christ as Lord and Savior, and be saved. Christianity does not teach that everyone will do so.

 

[atpollard]

No, that isn't correct...and it isn't a criticism of Calvinist theology to say so.

It is just that the opposite of limited atonement is not universal salvation but, rather, the chance for everyone to hear the Gospel, accept Christ as Lord and Savior, and be saved. Christianity does not teach that everyone will do so.

How can Jesus forgive all sins except they are not really forgiven because they don’t believe?
Joshua is NOT defining Limited Atonement as Reformed Theology has defined it for centuries. Sproul went through great care to address that very point.

You are free to reject Limited Atonement, I have no issue with that (it is not an issue worth fighting over), but you should at least reject what it actually teaches and not a Lutheran false characterization of Limited Atonement and his false ‘inescapable human logical consequences’ of it.


Limited Atonement:
1. Because of Adam, everyone is born with a fallen nature and cannot understand spiritual things, consider the Gospel as foolishness, are dead in their sins, cannot please God and do not seek after God (scripture verses available upon request to support all of these claims about natural man as well as many more things).

2. God need do NOTHING to damn every person who has ever lived. Our actions will condemn all of us and it would be an act of God’s Holy Justice to condemn the guilty as guilty. God is obligated to save no one.

3. God has chosen to show his great love and mercy by ‘foreknowing’ and ‘predestinining’ and ‘calling’ and ‘justifying’ and ‘sanctifying’ and ‘glorifying’ some of those fallen people known throughout scripture as “His sheep” and “the elect” and “the saints” and “the Body of Christ”. God has done this because of God’s sovereign choice and not due to any innate merit in those whom God has loved.

4. The Atonement of Christ MUST be limited by something if all people are not saved. If Jesus died for all sins and all sins are forgiven, then there was nothing limiting the Atonement ... all sins are forgiven (including unbelief) and all sinners are forgiven and everyone is bound for heaven. Since the Bible clearly teaches that everyone is not bound for heaven, then there must be some limitation on the forgiveness of sin.

[This is not rocket science, either all sins are forgiven or all sins are not forgiven.]

One option is that Jesus blood forgave all sins (like a pardon) but the forgiveness is not applied to YOUR particular sin until [something]. This “something” usually takes the form of ‘you confess’ or ‘you repent’ or ‘you believe’. The “LIMITATION” on the Atonement then becomes something that the person does. The problem that Calvinists have with this is that it means that Jesus’ blood actually saved NO ONE, it merely created for every single person, the opportunity to be saved.

The Calvinist Limited Atonement rejects an ineffective Blood of Christ and chooses to believe that Jesus’ death on the Cross paid the penalty in full and forever for every sin of every person whom God “foreknew” would be with Him in heaven. Thus the ‘Limitation’ is not on the ability of the blood of Christ to forgive sin, but the ‘Limitation’ is God only applying the blood to the sins of the Elect.

So your choice is between the Blood being applied ineffectually to all people (since only some are saved) or the Blood being applied effectually to only some (those who are ultimately saved). Unless you are going to embrace Universalism, you are going to have to accept some limitation (whether you are willing to admit it or not).

So is the Blood of Christ effectually applied to some or ineffectually applied to all?
That is the Theological question for you to answer for yourself.

 

[Albion]

How can Jesus forgive all sins except they are not really forgiven because they don’t believe?
Joshua is NOT defining Limited Atonement as Reformed Theology has defined it for centuries. Sproul went through great care to address that very point.

Whoever Joshua is and whatever Sproul says, the opposite of Limited Atonement (or "the alternative," as you worded it) is not Universalism. This is simply a fact that needs to be kept straight by anyone wanting to debate this subject.

You are free to reject Limited Atonement

Thanks for granting me that permission, but I wasn't saying anything about my own beliefs.

 

[MennoSota]

No, that isn't correct...and it isn't a criticism of Calvinist theology to say so.

It is just that the opposite of limited atonement is not universal salvation but, rather, the chance for everyone to hear the Gospel, accept Christ as Lord and Savior, and be saved. Christianity does not teach that everyone will do so.

You claim semi-pelagian teachings.
https://www.monergism.com/augustine-and-pelagius

 

[MennoSota]

How can Jesus forgive all sins except they are not really forgiven because they don’t believe?
Joshua is NOT defining Limited Atonement as Reformed Theology has defined it for centuries. Sproul went through great care to address that very point.

You are free to reject Limited Atonement, I have no issue with that (it is not an issue worth fighting over), but you should at least reject what it actually teaches and not a Lutheran false characterization of Limited Atonement and his false ‘inescapable human logical consequences’ of it.


Limited Atonement:
1. Because of Adam, everyone is born with a fallen nature and cannot understand spiritual things, consider the Gospel as foolishness, are dead in their sins, cannot please God and do not seek after God (scripture verses available upon request to support all of these claims about natural man as well as many more things).

2. God need do NOTHING to damn every person who has ever lived. Our actions will condemn all of us and it would be an act of God’s Holy Justice to condemn the guilty as guilty. God is obligated to save no one.

3. God has chosen to show his great love and mercy by ‘foreknowing’ and ‘predestinining’ and ‘calling’ and ‘justifying’ and ‘sanctifying’ and ‘glorifying’ some of those fallen people known throughout scripture as “His sheep” and “the elect” and “the saints” and “the Body of Christ”. God has done this because of God’s sovereign choice and not due to any innate merit in those whom God has loved.

4. The Atonement of Christ MUST be limited by something if all people are not saved. If Jesus died for all sins and all sins are forgiven, then there was nothing limiting the Atonement ... all sins are forgiven (including unbelief) and all sinners are forgiven and everyone is bound for heaven. Since the Bible clearly teaches that everyone is not bound for heaven, then there must be some limitation on the forgiveness of sin.

[This is not rocket science, either all sins are forgiven or all sins are not forgiven.]

One option is that Jesus blood forgave all sins (like a pardon) but the forgiveness is not applied to YOUR particular sin until [something]. This “something” usually takes the form of ‘you confess’ or ‘you repent’ or ‘you believe’. The “LIMITATION” on the Atonement then becomes something that the person does. The problem that Calvinists have with this is that it means that Jesus’ blood actually saved NO ONE, it merely created for every single person, the opportunity to be saved.

The Calvinist Limited Atonement rejects an ineffective Blood of Christ and chooses to believe that Jesus’ death on the Cross paid the penalty in full and forever for every sin of every person whom God “foreknew” would be with Him in heaven. Thus the ‘Limitation’ is not on the ability of the blood of Christ to forgive sin, but the ‘Limitation’ is God only applying the blood to the sins of the Elect.

So your choice is between the Blood being applied ineffectually to all people (since only some are saved) or the Blood being applied effectually to only some (those who are ultimately saved). Unless you are going to embrace Universalism, you are going to have to accept some limitation (whether you are willing to admit it or not).

So is the Blood of Christ effectually applied to some or ineffectually applied to all?
That is the Theological question for you to answer for yourself.

Well stated, atpollard.

 

[MennoSota]

Whoever Joshua is and whatever Sproul says, the opposite of Limited Atonement (or "the alternative," as you worded it) is not Universalism. This is simply a fact that needs to be kept straight by anyone wanting to debate this subject.


Thanks for granting me that permission, but I wasn't saying anything about my own beliefs.

The opposite is Universalism. What you are arguing is similar to what Arsenios and MC are arguing, which is the idea that humans assist God and influence God in regard to his extending of grace. It's not grace alone. It's my works plus God's grace. The idea, when pushed, is that humans determine their destiny and any falter in their resolve can ultimately cost them their salvation. The hinge is not God's grace, but instead it is man's will.
Your position is semi-pelagian...i.e. Arminiansm.

 

[Josiah]

Sadly, you refuse to accept that Calvinism teaches what it actually teaches and you insist on claiming that what Reformed theology has always taught is “my spin”.

LIMITED Atonement IS that Jesus died for only the minority.... that God DECIDED before the foundation of the world which people would NOT BE OFFERED grace, mercy, salvation.... for THOSE NAMED PERSONS, Jesus would be irrelevant, meaningless, of no purpose or value. The idea that God thus doesn't give them faith is simply the admission that faith would do nothing for them - there's nothing for that faith to apprehend, they are offered NOTHING. Faith in this senario really doens't mean anything, the whole point in TULIP is that God named which people would be offered grace (and thus the faith to apprehend it) and which would not (for whom faith is irrelevant since there's nothing for such faith to embrace).

The alternative to Limited Atonement (that the blood of Jesus does not effect the forgiveness of all sin of all people) is Universalism (the Blood of Jesus forgives all sins of all people so everyone will go to heaven).

Yup, in TULIP, faith is moot. It's all a result of LIMITED atonement; those chosen by name to never be offered grace or mercy or salvation or mercy are damned by that reality. They don't receive faith because it wouldn't do them any good, it wouldn't do anything since there's not anything for it to receive. Thus, you do as Calvinists seem to do: just ignore faith.


In TULIP, Justification (narrow) is simply God's LIMITED grace. In Lutheranism, it's Sola Gratia - Solus Christus - Sola Fide. In Lutheranism, there's Sola Gratia because grace exists.... there's Solus Christus because Christ is there.... Sola Fide exists because this is how that grace is apprehended. Faith plays a role - it apprehends what is offered.

The affirmation that Jesus died for all ( 1 John 2:2, 1 Timothy 2:4, 2 Peter 3:9 ) does not mean that ergo all are saved because, unlike in Calvinism, faith is not rendered irrelevant by the insistence that God chose those who would be abandoned and for whom there would be no grace (there goes Sola Gratia) and for whom there would be no Christ (there goes Solus Christus). Not all are saved because not all have faith.... NOT because God limited His grace and son, His mercy and grace to a minority of people.

How can Jesus forgive all sins except they are not really forgiven because they don’t believe?

In Calvinism, there is no forgiveness for most simply because God chose to not offer it to them...... they were named as the one who would never be extended grace, mercy, love, forgiveness... for them, there is no Christ, no Savior, no forgiveness because God chose to never extend that to them. Faith is irrelevant to them because there's nothing offered for it to accept, trust, rely upon, apprehend.

Your question here continues to reveal how in Calvinism, faith is irrelevant. Let's say I buy tickets to Hawaii for everyone at CH. But only some actually use the ticket and board the flight to Hawaii. How would the reality that not all used the ticket PROVE that actually I only bought tickets for a FEW and stayed up all night writing down the names of those whom I will refuse to be gracious to? It would only prove that there's another factor than my grace and the tickets I purchased... and that would be those who trust/rely/apprehend it (that's called pistis, faith). Faith is not irrelevant since no one could ever know if that faith can grasp anything.... faith is a factor because there IS something to accept or reject. See Ephesians 2:8, Romans 3:26, Acts 10:43.


Read https://lutheranreformation.org/theology/sola-fide/ As it points out, faith is moot if there is no solid OBJECT... if there is no grace for them.... no Christ for them..... then faith is irrelevant. Which is why in this radical Calvinist spin, there's just LIMITED atonement - most are just damned because God named most for that.



- Josiah



.

 

[Andrew]

This is why I don't agree that God makes choices for us.
He may know who loves him because God sees all future, past and present events and did indeed create his followers and called his followers his elect, but this whole double predestination talk is rather frightening to me. This idea leads me to believe that God calls for the actions of a man that hacks up people for no reason... a bit uncomfortable, yes they are slaves to sin and have no will but that of Satan but God wants all people to repent, remember that we are no more or less important than them, all need to repent! It is our duty to become fishers of men and not just throw a book at them and tell them to read or tell them they are going to hell and there for 'live it up' because Christ only forgives those who love him... I believe Christ told us to love our enemies and that he died for the world... so there is HOPE for them, this is why I can't be Lutheran.
Anyway end of rant, had a bad day so don't take it personally I just believe God creates nothing but Good and does not pick a specific amount of people for his Son to die for, Christ died for the sins of the world, he knocks on all doors not just some.

 

[MennoSota]

Christ died for the sins of the world, he knocks on all doors not just some.

These two are not the same.
God's message goes out to all. This is correct.
Christ's blood was shed only for those whom God saves.
If the latter were not true, then the blood of Jesus was shed in vain for the vast majority of humankind. God's sacrifice is, by that thought, less effective than the sacrifices of bulls and sheep on the temple mount. Do you really want to hang your hat on that claim?

 

[Josiah]

This is why I don't agree that God makes choices for us.
He may know who loves him because God sees all future, past and present events and did indeed create his followers and called his followers his elect, but this whole double predestination talk is rather frightening to me.

One can accept positive predestination (Lutherans call it what the Bible does, election) WITHOUT imposing something entirely unknown and contrary to the Bible, a silly idea from Greek philosophy, DOUBLE predestination.

This idea leads me to believe that God calls for the actions of a man that hacks up people for no reason... a bit uncomfortable, yes they are slaves to sin and have no will but that of Satan but God wants all people to repent, remember that we are no more or less important than them, all need to repent!

I'm uncomfortable with the idea that dead, fallen man performs certain good works which God rewards. It simply replaces God's grace, God's Savior and faith with self saving self by his own good works. It was what the Reformation was all about (well, not to this extreme). If we can save ourselves, then we wouldn't need a Savior, would we? See 1 Corinthians 2:14, Ephesians 2:1, 1 Corinthians 12:3, Romans 8:7-8, Galatians 2:16, Galatians 2:21, Ephesians 2:8-9, Romans 3:20, Romans 5:8, John 3:16, Romans 6:23

It is our duty to become fishers of men

ABSOLUTELY! Because unlike in Calvinism, Lutheranism does not insist that God doesn't want most to be saved and thus won't offer them His Savior, His grace, His mercy, His Son. We hold - PASSIONATELY - that it is our primary role to LOVE ALL (not just the few) - it is the GREAT COMMANDMENT and we are to TELL ALL that Jesus is the Savior, that Jesus saves - it is the Great Commission! God works faith via this love and proclamation! Now.... exactly HOW God uses those.... exactly HOW God works the miracle of spiritual life.... Lutherans do not claim to know all that. Only that Jesus is the Savior (we are not).... ALL need salvation... ALL are offered this gift (and we need to let them know that).... God doesn't HAVE to use our loving and telling, but He does and that IS what we are commanded to do, what we are privilaged to do. In Lutheanism, we can tell ALL that God loves them and died for them, because that's what He said (John 3:16, 1 John 2:2) And that is our privilege.

so there is HOPE for them, this is why I can't be Lutheran.

It's a few Calvinism that teaches there is no hope for most..... some Calvinists hold to LIMITED atonement, no Lutheran does.

had a bad day

Hugs





.

 

[Andrew]

These two are not the same.
God's message goes out to all. This is correct.
Christ's blood was shed only for those whom God saves.
If the latter were not true, then the blood of Jesus was shed in vain for the cast majority of humankind. God's sacrifice is, by that thought, less effective than the sacrifices of bulls and sheep on the temple mount. Do you really want to hang your hat on that claim?

Christ blood was shed for all who believe but the offer is there for nonbelievers (you were born a non believer). Yes we can both agree that there are those who do and those who won't believe but the elect is generalized not specified personally, we may or may not be written in the book of life, God will judge us all and although it may look black and white to us, for God I am certain that he is omnipresent and sees all things at once, it does not mean that he fore planned man to fall and to save Steve and not Gerald before his creation.

 

[Andrew]

One can accept positive predestination (Lutherans call it what the Bible does, election) WITHOUT imposing something entirely unknown and contrary to the Bible, a silly idea from Greek philosophy, DOUBLE predestination.






I'm uncomfortable with the idea that dead, fallen man performs certain good works which God rewards. It simply replaces God's grace, God's Savior and faith with self saving self by his own good works. It was what the Reformation was all about (well, not to this extreme). If we can save ourselves, then we wouldn't need a Savior, would we? See 1 Corinthians 2:14, Ephesians 2:1, 1 Corinthians 12:3, Romans 8:7-8, Galatians 2:16, Galatians 2:21, Ephesians 2:8-9, Romans 3:20, Romans 5:8, John 3:16, Romans 6:23







ABSOLUTELY! Because unlike in Calvinism, Lutheranism does not insist that God doesn't want most to be saved and thus won't offer them His Savior, His grace, His mercy, His Son. We hold - PASSIONATELY - that it is our primary role to LOVE ALL (not just the few) - it is the GREAT COMMANDMENT and we are to TELL ALL that Jesus is the Savior, that Jesus saves - it is the Great Commission! God works faith via this love and proclamation! Now.... exactly HOW God uses those.... exactly HOW God works the miracle of spiritual life.... Lutherans do not claim to know all that. Only that Jesus is the Savior (we are not).... ALL need salvation... ALL are offered this gift (and we need to let them know that).... God doesn't HAVE to use our loving and telling, but He does and that IS what we are commanded to do, what we are privilaged to do. In Lutheanism, we can tell ALL that God loves them and died for them, because that's what He said (John 3:16, 1 John 2:2) And that is our privilege.






It's a few Calvinism that teaches there is no hope for most..... some Calvinists hold to LIMITED atonement, no Lutheran does.




Hugs





.

I get what you are saying brother.
I would call this hardcore and almost 'woo' theology but I simply view it as well.. simpler
Enoch could mean election if you thought about it, his name means 'inauguration' and his being 'taken up' sounds like a rapture to me, he wasn't a pre elect -he was an Elect.
The Elect are Gods chosen, and God did appoint us, but he did not pre-appoint us because that just sounds silly.
Again, I am recently weak in my arguments not because I am weak in belief but because this 'next levelness' is a bit much to follow yet I want to stay involved.
Thank you Josiah and Menno for interacting with me...

 

[atpollard]

Why did Esau loose his birthright to the blessing as the firstborn?
Was it Esau’s choice or God’s choice to bless Jacob and pass over Esau?

You are speaking of FAITH as if fallen man were capable of faith without that Faith being the unmerited gift to them from God.
You speak of God as an impartial, neutral observer.
Jacob and Esau paint a very different picture of a God active in the affairs of man.