The Value of Evangelism in Reformed Theology

[JLB]

Everyone means every person who ever lived and ever will live. And since we know that the Bible clearly teaches that not everyone is saved, the gospel is not for everyone. 1 Cor. 2:14

• But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
  1 Corinthians 2:14

This has nothing to do with the Gospel being preached to the world.


Of course you know that, which is why you don’t post an actual scripture, just the scripture reference.


Do you believe the elect are already saved before they hear the Gospel?




JLB

 

[JLB]

Jesus is speaking to a Jew who believed (and rightly so) that God did not allow Gentiles into the covenant God established with Israel, so when Jesus said "the world," he in that context is talking about the Gentiles being included in the gospel kingdom. Context, context, context.
TD

The Jew was rebuked by Jesus for his ignorance, about being born again.


Abraham was a Gentile, and was who the Lord made covenant with.



JLB

 

[OzSpen]

I have just begun reading the book Deconstructing Calvinism, by Hudson Smelley, and in the prologue found this statement:

Calvinism completely compasses God's redemptive plan and teaches that God saves a small percentage of humanity based on His elective determination before creation and passes over the rest. Since God's redemptive plan excludes most people, there is no basis for us to tell a lost person that God loves them, that Jesus died for them, that they should believe in Christ for salvation, or that there is hope beyond the grave. If the lost person is not elect, we would be misleading them if we said any of those things. Indeed, it is difficult to see how we could make any honest gospel presentation knowing most people are by God's purposes not savable. Not only that, since salvation hangs on God's elective determination before creation and not on a present decision for Christ, we must make this TULIP reality personal. We must come to grips with the fact that many of those we know, and perhaps some of those closest to us, have no possibility of being reconciled to God because they are not elect.

What caught my eye is the idea that "there is no basis for us to tell a lost person that God loves them, that Jesus died for them, that they should believe in Christ for salvation, or that there is hope beyond the grave. If the lost person is not elect, we would be misleading them if we said any of those things."

I had always thought the Calvinistic evangelism was like searching for the proverbial needle in a haystack,, the rare Elect person in the mass of reprobates, but had never thought of the effect of the presentation of the gospel to those who would never be able to experience it. Smelley terms it "misleading" them to think that they might be savable, when in fact, there isn't a sliver of hope that this would happen.

What are your thoughts, either pro or con to Smelley's thought?


Doug

Doug,

I attend a Presbyterian (Reformed) church - it's the only church in my region that practises expository preaching through books of the Bible.

A few months ago, the youth pastor finished up at the church as he had completed theological studies and was heading to a Melbourne University to work with AFES (the Australian Fellowship of Evangelical Students), an outreach to non-Christians. What would he do there? His exact words were he was going there 'to find the elect'.

Therefore, he could not honestly preach John 3:16 and the Gospel message was open to everyone who believes. Can you imagine his preaching to Uni students: 'Come to Jesus for salvation, but most won't be able to do that because God has not chosen you for eternal life'?

In my understanding, the three impossible hurdles for salvation in TULIP are:

1. U - unconditional election. When this becomes 'conditional' election, it allows people a free will choice to accept or reject salvation.
2. L - limited atonement. Even some Calvinists, known as Amyraldians, reject this.
3. I = Irresistible grace. If there is no opportunity to resist God's grace, it makes the 'Christian' an automaton.

I accept the T and P of TULIP but reject U, L and I.

Oz

 

[JLB]

What would he do there? His exact words were he was going there 'to find the elect'.

I’m grateful he is reaching out to the lost (elect).

 

[JLB]

Anyone whom God wishes to sanctify and grant faith and repentance will end up as the elect of God. Rev. 5:9

Again, you are projecting your predetermined perspective into the verse.

Again you don’t post the verse but only a scripture reference.


Now when He had taken the scroll, the four living creatures and the twenty-four elders fell down before the Lamb, each having a harp, and golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints. And they sang a new song, saying:
“You are worthy to take the scroll,
And to open its seals;
For You were slain,
And have redeemed us to God by Your blood
Out of every tribe and tongue and people and nation,
Revelation 5:8-9


This verse says nothing whatsoever about ... Anyone whom God wishes to sanctify and grant faith and repentance will end up as the elect of God


This is the four living creatures and the twenty four elders singing a new song of praise to the Lamb for redeeming them by His blood.


The blood of Jesus was shed for all men, and whosoever believes in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life.


This is a faithful saying and worthy of all acceptance. For to this end we both labor and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Savior of all men, especially of those who believe. These things command and teach.
1 Timothy 4:9-11



JLB

 

[TibiasDad]

The problem with this straw man argument is that it confuses they why with the how. Why a person is saved has to do with what God does in a person's heart that leads to salvation, for example Acts 16:14
"And a certain woman named Lydia, a seller of purple, of the city of Thyatira, which worshipped God, heard us: whose heart the Lord opened, that she attended unto the things which were spoken of Paul."

"Whose heart the Lord opened" - to claim that a person is on their own to make a decision for Christ (or to say that a person has to be manipulated into "accepting Christ" by their own free will by means of pressure and persuasion) - is to claim that a person can make themselves righteous enough to make a spiritually right decision before God, without God's help. The fact that the Bible teaches that God does a sanctifying work by the Holy Spirit in everyone who believes is clear.

In regard to the HOW, the Bible is also clear and explicit in saying that it is by the preaching of the gospel. God uses this means to do that very sanctifying work in the elect. Therefore, Reformed Theology is very much in favor of evangelism for that reason. Anyone who denies this has not carefully considered the reformed confessions such as the Baptist confession of 1689, the Westminster Confession, the Helvetic Confession, and others.

One of the most prolific evangelists of the 18th Century was George Whitefield, who strongly believed in Reformed Theology; another was Jonathan Edwards. Reformed Theology teaches that "salvation is of the Lord" (Jonah 2:9). It means that salvation is caused by God making a person born again by the Spirit (John 3:3, 1 Pet. 1:23).

Here are the facts:
1. Missionaries say that 1 out of 25 people they encounter are being saved (that's 4%), so few are actually being saved.
2. Jesus passed by many people, dealing only with those He chose to deal with, and mainly those who already exhibited faith in God.
3. Jesus preached to the crowds saying "your Father in heaven," knowing full well that many of them did not believe and would not be saved.

There may be many other facts to consider, but this should be enough to dispel the above straw man argument. In fact, even salesmen know that they have to try persuading 100 people in order to get 1 to buy his product, and this is a natural process. A supernatural process like God sanctifying the elect and causing them to spiritually understand the gospel is similar only in the sense that we must speak to many people, not knowing who the elect are, but assuming that someone listening is the elect, and that God is at work in that person's heart. This requires faith, because it puts control in God's rightful hands, since the preacher has no (zero) control over what God does in a person's heart.

Therefore, I stand contrary to Hudson Smelley's straw man argument, and deem it to be ignorant of not only Reformed teaching, but also of the teachings of scripture. IMO he is confused between natural and spiritual process. The fact is, God gives everyone a chance to make a decision on his own, since the message "has gone out to the ends of the Earth" (Rom. 10:18). And since "no one understands, no one seeks for God," those whom God does not do the sanctifying work necessary for spiritual rebirth will not believe nor will they repent of their wickedness. Salvation is an act of God, not men.

Therefore, this kind of faulty reasoning like Smelley's is equivalent to atheists and evolutionists looking at particular evidences and coming to faulty conclusions based on their personal agendas and biases.
TD

Firstly, thank you for your considered response. I appreciate your chiming in with your perspective.

Secondly, one might perceive your thoughts as attacking a strawman as well. You imply that Arminian thought thinks that Lydia had anything to do with salvation of her own accord; we do not.
You have neglected the fact that Lydia was already "a worshiper of God", already had an open heart to the truth of God. For instance, in Acts 19, Paul found a group who had been baptized by John the Baptist, but had not heard of Jesus or the Holy Spirit, but as soon as they did, they recognized the truth and we're baptized in Jesus' name. Their hearts were all ready open, that's why the truth of Jesus was a natural extension of the truth they had already believed.

I think this is the same kind of scenario in John 10, where he tells the Pharisees that they are not his sheep, while other faithful Jewish people were. Jesus is not saying that they are unelected, he is saying that they had not been truly following the law in their hearts and thus were not loving God, for if they had been, like these other Jewish people who were following Jesus, they too would have recognized the truth he had been teaching. Thus, Jesus said that if they won't believe his words, then at least they ashould believe his works, the miracles he had been performing just as the many of the Jews who were following him had. This leads to another thought...

There is certainly a sense in which "no one understands, no one seeks for God", but this does not mean that is impossible to do so, or that men are totally incapable of understanding the truth when confronted by it. It's not a matter of inability, it is matter of being unwilling as an overt act to accept the truth. (Rom 1:21
2 Pet 3:5 Exodus 32:9 Acts 7:51) It is quite obvious that there are people who are unconverted, yet religious and have a desire for God. They may not have surrendered in full to the truth, but they are actively listening and searching. They know they have a problem and are trying to find the solution. (I say this only in the context of real desire to be righteous; I am not suggesting that we save ourselves in any way. The implications of the hyperbolic "no one understands, no one seeks God" understanding which you appear to be asserting is unsustainable both in scripture and in real time application and experience.

Lastly, if you think that Smelley is in the same boat with atheists and evolutionists, concluding as they do by means of their biased axioms, but Calvinists do not, I suggest that your head has been stuck too deep and for too long in the sand!

Yes, we all have our biases. Part of the reason I started habitating debate forums was to challenge my own thinking to see where the weaknesses are in my thinking. To have my biases exposed and challenged. I am not saying that Smelley, or anyone else doesn't have biases, I only say that I don't find your assertions to that effect credible or successful in refuting his propositions.


Doug

 

[TibiasDad]

Everyone means every person who ever lived and ever will live. And since we know that the Bible clearly teaches that not everyone is saved, the gospel is not for everyone. 1 Cor. 2:14

Anyone means God does not limit salvation to ethnic groups or nationalities or any other natural category. Anyone whom God wishes to sanctify and grant faith and repentance will end up as the elect of God. Rev. 5:9
TD

1) Yes, everyone means every person period, no exceptions!

2) It does not follow, however, that since not everyone is saved, that the gospel was not intended to be for everyone; nor does it mean that the ones for whom it was intended necessarily will or must accept it.

3) Your definition of what the scope and limitation of salvation is are exercises in hair-splitting that are solely self-serving and without scriptural foundation.


Doug

 

[tdidymas]

But God has revealed them to us through His Spirit. For the Spirit searches all things, yes, the deep things of God. For what man knows the things of a man except the spirit of the man which is in him? Even so no one knows the things of God except the Spirit of God. Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might know the things that have been freely given to us by God.
These things we also speak, not in words which man’s wisdom teaches but which the Holy Spirit teaches, comparing spiritual things with spiritual. But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. But he who is spiritual judges all things, yet he himself is rightly judged by no one. For “who has known the mind of the LORD that he may instruct Him?” But we have the mind of Christ. 1 Corinthians 2:10-16


This verse is referring to Born Again Christians, who have the Spirit of God verses the “the natural man”, people who do not have the Spirit.


This has absolutely nothing to do with our discussion of John 3:16 and those to whom the gospel has been made available, which is “whosoever believes”.

You stated that only the elect will be interested in obeying Christ concerning the Gospel.

Here is your statement —

“So, when people hear John 3:16 quoted, only the elect will be interested in obeying Christ,”


I asked you to give chapter and verse that validates your statement of... “So, when people hear John 3:16 quoted, only the elect will be interested in obeying Christ,”


1 Corinthians 2:14 certainly does not say this, nor is it about who will or will not respond to the Gospel, or who the Gospel is for.

• But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. 1 Corinthians 2:14

Sorry but John 3:16 plainly says God loves the world, not just the elect, and whosoever believes refers to anyone and or everyone who believes in Him, should not perish, but have everlasting life.



For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. John 3:16


The Gospel is for the world of unsaved people.



JLB

And yet, God will pour out His wrath on the very world He loves.

"The natural man does not receive..." means he is not interested in understanding the gospel, since it is foolishness in his assessment of it. The one who does not have the indwelling Spirit can't discern the significance of the gospel to his life. Therefore he will not be interested in it, since he does not see it as worth treasuring. This has everything to do with John 3:16. "Whoever believes" is obviously not the entire human race. It's ONLY those WHO BELIEVE. So 1 Cor. 2:14 fits well with John 3:16, since "scripture interprets scripture" is a proper rule of hermeneutics.
TD

 

[tdidymas]

Firstly, thank you for your considered response. I appreciate your chiming in with your perspective.

Secondly, one might perceive your thoughts as attacking a strawman as well. You imply that Arminian thought thinks that Lydia had anything to do with salvation of her own accord; we do not.
You have neglected the fact that Lydia was already "a worshiper of God", already had an open heart to the truth of God. For instance, in Acts 19, Paul found a group who had been baptized by John the Baptist, but had not heard of Jesus or the Holy Spirit, but as soon as they did, they recognized the truth and we're baptized in Jesus' name. Their hearts were all ready open, that's why the truth of Jesus was a natural extension of the truth they had already believed.

[/QUOTE]
Who opened the hearts of these people, and when did that happen? Are you claiming that people open their hearts to God by themselves without God's help so that they are ready to receive the message when it is preached? The point of Acts 16:14 is not when Lydia's heart was opened, but that God did that work. God is the one who opens hearts to receive the gospel, regardless of when it is done and how long it took. It is necessary for God to do this because 2 Cor. 4:4 says that people are blinded by Satan. God has to release them first so that they can receive the Word.

I think this is the same kind of scenario in John 10, where he tells the Pharisees that they are not his sheep, while other faithful Jewish people were. Jesus is not saying that they are unelected, he is saying that they had not been truly following the law in their hearts and thus were not loving God, for if they had been, like these other Jewish people who were following Jesus, they too would have recognized the truth he had been teaching. Thus, Jesus said that if they won't believe his words, then at least they ashould believe his works, the miracles he had been performing just as the many of the Jews who were following him had.

Are you saying that a person has to obey the law and love God before they can hear the gospel and believe it? I think you are confusing justification with sanctification much like the RCC by your response here. The Pharisees were not Jesus' sheep because they were not elect of God. (Incidentally, some of the Pharisees did believe and became followers of Christ, but in this context, it was those who were hostile to Jesus).

Let's get the cause and effect in order here. God causes some to be born again, believe the gospel, love God, and obey His commandments. God causes that. Our freedom to respond to the gospel call is a result (effect) of God doing the work of salvation in those who believe. God has to free us from the bondage of sin and the kingdom of darkness, and raise us spiritually from death to life. If God doesn't raise us up, we won't be raised, because we can't do that on our own.

Here is the order of that spiritual and supernatural action clearly laid out to us in Eph. 2:1-10:
1. We're dead in sin - can't obey the gospel and don't want to. v.5
2. God raises us to life and situates us in Christ. v.6
3. We believe and are saved. v.8
4. We become Christlike. v.10
According to this passage of scripture, our salvation is all God's work. Our cooperation and obedience is the effect and result of the work of God in us.

This leads to another thought... There is certainly a sense in which "no one understands, no one seeks for God", but this does not mean that is impossible to do so, or that men are totally incapable of understanding the truth when confronted by it. It's not a matter of inability, it is matter of being unwilling as an overt act to accept the truth. (Rom 1:21
2 Pet 3:5 Exodus 32:9 Acts 7:51) It is quite obvious that there are people who are unconverted, yet religious and have a desire for God. They may not have surrendered in full to the truth, but they are actively listening and searching. They know they have a problem and are trying to find the solution. (I say this only in the context of real desire to be righteous; I am not suggesting that we save ourselves in any way. The implications of the hyperbolic "no one understands, no one seeks God" understanding which you appear to be asserting is unsustainable both in scripture and in real time application and experience.

Do you think that people who are seeking God are doing it on their own? Without the Holy Spirit interceding for them in groanings too deep for words? Without God illuminating their hearts? Without God willing and doing His good purpose in them? If you think this, then you are in opposition to "no one seeks for God." If you think this, then you are in opposition to "no one is righteous, no one does good, not even one." Your response suggest that you do not believe in the doctrine of Original Sin the way that Augustine laid it out. Your response suggests you believe like the RCC that sin merely hinders the "goodness of your desires and good free will" (I'm speaking sarcastically here). Your response appears to deny that you were once God's enemy when you were on your own, and deny that you were "walking according to the course of the world, according to the prince of the power of the air, and were a son of disobedience." Are you of the opinion that sin and disobedience are merely innocent or ignorant mistakes?

Lastly, if you think that Smelley is in the same boat with atheists and evolutionists, concluding as they do by means of their biased axioms, but Calvinists do not, I suggest that your head has been stuck too deep and for too long in the sand!

I can't speak for other people. But I once thought as you do. I had to change my thinking and beliefs after studying the Bible for more than 20 years on the subject. The idea is to interpret the Bible according to what the Bible says in its context, and leave personal opinion out of it. But everyone who sincerely wants to do this knows it's easier said than done. So your suggestion that I'm in the sand fails.

Yes, we all have our biases. Part of the reason I started habitating debate forums was to challenge my own thinking to see where the weaknesses are in my thinking. To have my biases exposed and challenged. I am not saying that Smelley, or anyone else doesn't have biases, I only say that I don't find your assertions to that effect credible or successful in refuting his propositions.


Doug

It seems to me that you don't find my assertions credible in refuting Smelley because you read both the scripture and what I write with a bias. I suggest that you come to false conclusions about it because you have decided that those conclusions are correct before you even start reading.

Yes, everyone has a bias. Even God has a bias. The idea is to get into God's bias. I suggest that if a person is committed to human reasoning and will not even consider believing what the scripture says in spite of it being contrary to natural reasoning, such a person will not be able to get into God's bias. This is the nature of 1 Cor. 2:14.
TD

 

[tdidymas]

• But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
  1 Corinthians 2:14

This has nothing to do with the Gospel being preached to the world.


Of course you know that, which is why you don’t post an actual scripture, just the scripture reference.


Do you believe the elect are already saved before they hear the Gospel?




JLB

It has everything to do with the gospel, since it is what Paul is talking about since ch. 1. He hasn't changed the subject.

Since Paul is clear that everyone who believes has been predestined, then all the elect is as good as saved before they are actually converted, since God will sovereignly make it happen. Just because you don't reason it like that doesn't mean it's not true. Rom. 8:28-30 is that declaration.
TD

 

[tdidymas]

The Jew was rebuked by Jesus for his ignorance, about being born again.


Abraham was a Gentile, and was who the Lord made covenant with.



JLB

Which speaks of the general laziness of people not wanting to spend the time and effort it takes to dig out the treasures of knowledge in the scripture that God has provided. Yet God has mercy toward some.

My point was regarding what the Jews generally believed at the time. A Jew could easily reason that Abraham was the father of their faith, therefore he being a "Gentile" was allowed, since God first established the covenant with him, making his progeny God's people. However, let me remind you that Abraham was a Hebrew, and so he already had a heritage in that regard, and therefore was not a "Gentile."
TD

 

[tdidymas]

Again, you are projecting your predetermined perspective into the verse.

Again you don’t post the verse but only a scripture reference.


Now when He had taken the scroll, the four living creatures and the twenty-four elders fell down before the Lamb, each having a harp, and golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints. And they sang a new song, saying:
“You are worthy to take the scroll,
And to open its seals;
For You were slain,
And have redeemed us to God by Your blood
Out of every tribe and tongue and people and nation,
Revelation 5:8-9


This verse says nothing whatsoever about ... Anyone whom God wishes to sanctify and grant faith and repentance will end up as the elect of God


This is the four living creatures and the twenty four elders singing a new song of praise to the Lamb for redeeming them by His blood.


The blood of Jesus was shed for all men, and whosoever believes in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life.


This is a faithful saying and worthy of all acceptance. For to this end we both labor and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Savior of all men, especially of those who believe. These things command and teach.
1 Timothy 4:9-11



JLB

Rev. 5:9 is teaching particular redemption. It does not say Christ's blood redeemed everyone. It says "men from every tribe, tongue, and nation," which is a subset. 1 Tim. 4:11 concurs by saying that God is the savior of those who believe. So to adhere to the law of non-contradiction, "all men" in v. 10 has to refer to that subset of men from every tribe, tongue, and nation.

And since Paul is clear that everyone who believes has been predestined by God, my statement holds true. Rom. 8:28-30.
TD

 

[jasonc]

while i remain arminist,but preytell of all the living God could only have chosen Abraham yet the family in ur also heard and believe as well the God of Jacob ,there were other nations,did not Jesus say had Sodom and Gomorrah heard they would have repented?

I,do check my own beliefs from time to time

 

[tdidymas]

1) Yes, everyone means every person period, no exceptions!

2) It does not follow, however, that since not everyone is saved, that the gospel was not intended to be for everyone; nor does it mean that the ones for whom it was intended necessarily will or must accept it.

3) Your definition of what the scope and limitation of salvation is are exercises in hair-splitting that are solely self-serving and without scriptural foundation.


Doug

I get this is your opinion, but not scripturally based. Since man is under the bondage of the sinful nature, Eph. 2:1-10 tells us that God had to intervene in a major way to get us saved, and therefore salvation is the decision and work of God, not we by ourselves. Therefore, it can be argued that since the gospel is for anyone, it is intended for everyone, but is not effective for anyone except those whom God chooses to save.

Those who reject it have no excuse, because it could have been accepted, had they been humble enough to do so. But since mankind is hopelessly in bondage to the prince of the power of the air (1 Jn. 5:19, Eph. 2:2), it takes God to intervene.
TD

 

[JLB]

And yet, God will pour out His wrath on the very world He loves.

On those who reject His Son.

 

[JLB]

And yet, God will pour out His wrath on the very world He loves.

"The natural man does not receive..." means he is not interested in understanding the gospel, since it is foolishness in his assessment of it. The one who does not have the indwelling Spirit can't discern the significance of the gospel to his life. Therefore he will not be interested in it, since he does not see it as worth treasuring. This has everything to do with John 3:16. "Whoever believes" is obviously not the entire human race. It's ONLY those WHO BELIEVE. So 1 Cor. 2:14 fits well with John 3:16, since "scripture interprets scripture" is a proper rule of hermeneutics.
TD

It has everything to do with the gospel, since it is what Paul is talking about since ch. 1. He hasn't changed the subject.

Since Paul is clear that everyone who believes has been predestined, then all the elect is as good as saved before they are actually converted, since God will sovereignly make it happen. Just because you don't reason it like that doesn't mean it's not true. Rom. 8:28-30 is that declaration.
TD

1 Corinthians 2:14 has nothing to do with the Gospel, with some being elect or not. It’s about Christians not receiving teaching from the Spirit because they are carnal, babes in Christ, wanting to follow (be bottle fed) the teachings of men, and not be taught by Christ; by the Spirit of Christ.



These things we also speak, not in words which man’s wisdom teaches but which the Holy Spirit teaches, comparing spiritual things with spiritual. But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. But he who is spiritual judges all things, yet he himself is rightly judged by no one. For “who has known the mind of the LORD that he may instruct Him?” But we have the mind of Christ.
And I, brethren, could not speak to you as to spiritual people but as to carnal, as to babes in Christ. I fed you with milk and not with solid food; for until now you were not able to receive it, and even now you are still not able; for you are still carnal. 1 Corinthians 2:14-3:3



This is another good example of you lifting a verse out of its context, and projecting your own predetermine perspective into it.



JLB

 

[TibiasDad]

Doug,

I attend a Presbyterian (Reformed) church - it's the only church in my region that practises expository preaching through books of the Bible.

A few months ago, the youth pastor finished up at the church as he had completed theological studies and was heading to a Melbourne University to work with AFES (the Australian Fellowship of Evangelical Students), an outreach to non-Christians. What would he do there? His exact words were he was going there 'to find the elect'.

Therefore, he could not honestly preach John 3:16 and the Gospel message was open to everyone who believes. Can you imagine his preaching to Uni students: 'Come to Jesus for salvation, but most won't be able to do that because God has not chosen you for eternal life'?

In my understanding, the three impossible hurdles for salvation in TULIP are:

1. U - unconditional election. When this becomes 'conditional' election, it allows people a free will choice to accept or reject salvation.
2. L - limited atonement. Even some Calvinists, known as Amyraldians, reject this.
3. I = Irresistible grace. If there is no opportunity to resist God's grace, it makes the 'Christian' an automaton.

I accept the T and P of TULIP but reject U, L and I.

Oz

Thanks, Oz, it's good to hear from down under! I would reject P, as well, given the Reformed position, for Pos is more of a logical conclusion to the TULI rather than a strictly scriptural one. The T, I would accept, though I would not define it as Calvinism does!


Doug

 

[OzSpen]

Rev. 5:9 is teaching particular redemption. It does not say Christ's blood redeemed everyone. It says "men from every tribe, tongue, and nation," which is a subset. 1 Tim. 4:11 concurs by saying that God is the savior of those who believe. So to adhere to the law of non-contradiction, "all men" in v. 10 has to refer to that subset of men from every tribe, tongue, and nation.

And since Paul is clear that everyone who believes has been predestined by God, my statement holds true. Rom. 8:28-30.
TD

TD,

You are cherry-picking verses to suit your theology. How about Titus 2:11-12 (ESV): 'For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation for all people, training us to renounce ungodliness and worldly passions, and to live self-controlled, upright, and godly lives in the present age'.

That doesn't mean all will receive this salvation but it is 'brought to all people'. That does not support particular redemption/limited atonement.

Oz

 

[tdidymas]

On those who reject His Son.

Do you think this statement is a disagreement on what I stated earlier?
TD

 

[JLB]

Do you think this statement is a disagreement on what I stated earlier?
TD

I honestly don't assume to know what you think.