The Necessity of All of TULIP

[Arial]

Total Depravity. The doctrinal teaching in Total Depravity states that mankind through the transgression of Adam is affected in all his being with sin. This includes his will which is moved by his desires. Those desires now contain both good and evil, not just good.This separates him from a holy God. God and man have become enemies. Though man retains the natural capacity to choose God, (he did not lose his will) to come to him in repentance, he no longer has the ability, in that he does not want to. In addition he is dead in his sins to any understanding of those spiritual things that was lost in the fall. He is completely helpless to reconcile himself to God.(Romans 8:7; 18-32; 3:9-18; Eph 2:1-10; 1 Cor 2:14)

How then can any be saved?

Unconditional Election. There are two options. God can save everyone or he can save some. Unconditional election in the Doctrines of Grace, means that God elects some for salvation. "Unconditional" means that God's choice is not conditioned upon or influenced by anything outside of God himself.

We know that not all are saved, so does God's word tell us that he elects some to salvation? It does, over and over again, and I will list a few of the places. But first we must consider who God is and not lose sight of that as we interpret any passage. Scripture shows us in the creation account that everything that is made is made by him, and is perfect in accordance with his own perfection; good in accordance with his own complete goodness; and it can only be for his purpose, and everything is subject to him. He shows us from the very beginning that he gives everything a purpose---including man who is the only made in his image and likeness---and provided all that is necessary for sustaining all things. We see throughout scripture, at every turn, God is always doing the choosing of everything, be it persons, places, times, events, boundaries, purpose. He is behind all the choices of men, even though the choices they make are real choices from their own desires and aims. We can see this most vividly in the story of Joseph, God's response to Assyria when he sent them in judgement of his people, and in the cross itself.

So what does he say concerning the elect? He refers to believers as the "called", the "foreknown" the "predestined to be conformed to the image of Christ", the "elect", the "chosen". (2 Tim 1:9; 1 Peter 2:9; 2 Peter 1:10; Eph 4:1; 1 Cor 1:9; Eph 1:4-5; Romans 8:29; Romans 8:23)

If no one can be saved unless God by grace elects them to salvation, what does this do to the atonement?

Limited Atonement. The use of "limited" has often been said, and rightly so, that it does not accurately describe the doctrine, and leads to instant rebellion against it in the minds of people. The more accurate term is Particular atonement. There is no limit to the power of Christ's sacrifice. However if no one can be saved unless God in his grace saves them by providing what is necessary for salvation; and if he elects some to save; then the atonement is of necessity made for the elect only. If it were made for all, and there was no election by God, then it had the potential, given man's slavery to sin, to not atone for anyone. And in fact could not as there are none willing, and none even able to hear the gospel and understand it in order to believe it. Believing is stated throughout the NT as being what joins one to Christ and gives eternal life.

So if Christ died for the elect, by what means is it assured that these elect will believe?

Irresistible Grace. This doctrine states that God's grace does exactly what he intends it to do. His grace regenerates, calls, and places the elect in Christ through faith, and faith is a gift of God. (Eph 2:1-10; John 3:1-15; John 6:35-65; John 10:22-30; John 1:12-13)

Perseverance of the Saints. If all of the above is true, salvation is all the work of God in a person, and therefore it is impossible that any will be lost. It is God who keeps them and works in them and finishes the work that he began.

 

[Fred]

I wonder then about people who claim to be a 2 point Calvinist or a 3 point Calvinist, etc.
Not sure if that would be consistent.

 

[Eternally-Grateful]

I wonder then about people who claim to be a 2 point Calvinist or a 3 point Calvinist, etc.
Not sure if that would be consistent.

I think it goes along the facts of not everyone is a Calvinist, or Arminian.

so they may believe or agree with parts. and not other parts..

That's why we should never try to put people under isms, or doctrines. But listen to what they say with open minds and hearts.

 

[Arial]

I wonder then about people who claim to be a 2 point Calvinist or a 3 point Calvinist, etc.
Not sure if that would be consistent.

Imo it wouldn't be, since the points flow automatically into one another. It would seem to me to be picking and choosing but no follow through to the conclusions of what they discarded and kept. I would really need to know what those things are and what they were replaced with and give an exegesis and exposition of the scriptures used to support their position to go any farther than that.

 

[Arial]

I think it goes along the facts of not everyone is a Calvinist, or Arminian.

so they may believe or agree with parts. and not other parts..

That is self evident. But it was not the question being asked.

That's why we should never try to put people under isms, or doctrines. But listen to what they say with open minds and hearts.

Everyone has "isms" and doctrines. It is what defines what they believe, whether or not it is a specific "ism" or doctrine. The entire NT epistles are laying the doctrinal foundation of Christ's church. A church without any specified doctrine is not the church of Christ. I do not understand where the idea that if someone is speaking of what is in a particular "ism" or doctrine that means they are trying to define the other person, or that their mind is closed and they do not understand what any one else says, is coming from.

It sounds to me like you are saying we should go along to get along and agree to disagree, rather than discuss anything. In which case the forum responses would amount to "I agree," or "I disagree." End of thread.

So, in connection with the OP: are there parts of the doctrines of grace that you agree with and others that you do not agree with?

 

[Arial]

I wonder then about people who claim to be a 2 point Calvinist or a 3 point Calvinist, etc.
Not sure if that would be consistent.

At best, they might be considered Calvinistic concerning the doctrines of grace. It should be remembered that Calvinism is not just the TULIP, and most of the traditional church is in agreement with most of what is in it. Which are the doctrines established for the Protestant church during the Reformation.

 

[atpollard]

Limited Atonement. The use of "limited" has often been said, and rightly so, that it does not accurately describe the doctrine, and leads to instant rebellion against it in the minds of people. The more accurate term is Particular atonement. There is no limit to the power of Christ's sacrifice. However if no one can be saved unless God in his grace saves them by providing what is necessary for salvation; and if he elects some to save; then the atonement is of necessity made for the elect only. If it were made for all, and there was no election by God, then it had the potential, given man's slavery to sin, to not atone for anyone. And in fact could not as there are none willing, and none even able to hear the gospel and understand it in order to believe it. Believing is stated throughout the NT as being what joins one to Christ and gives eternal life.

This presupposes that the ATONEMENT is the exclusive MEANS of grace (imparting the Gift of salvation), yet other people have opined that the POWER OF THE GOSPEL can impart grace and the ATONEMENT was truly for all of mankind (just as was Adam's curse). The other 4 points remain unchanged. Man is still guilty of sin and condemned by that sin. God still draws unconditionally and irresistibly. Thuse saved are still sealed until redemption. The only change is the Atonement removes the barrier of the Adamic curse between HUMANITY and GOD (just as Adam's sin raised it) and the GOSPEL (Holy Spirit/Living Word) empowers men to stop hiding and come to God for forgiveness.

I have heard [but not read the INSTITUTES for myself] that John Calvin was not willing to fully embrace "L" because it made 'logical sense' but lacked irrefutable scripture support [which TU*IP has]. I was personally persuaded by the "bridge analogy" of Spurgeon that "L" was "more likely than not", but I cannot judge harshly a brother who reads scripture and concludes that "the whole world" really means "all mankind". That is not an unreasonable exegesis of scripture.

 

[ElectedbyHim]

I wonder then about people who claim to be a 2 point Calvinist or a 3 point Calvinist, etc.
Not sure if that would be consistent.

Yes, I never understood that.

The 5 points all mesh and work together.

You cannot have one without the other.

 

[Arial]

This presupposes that the ATONEMENT is the exclusive MEANS of grace (imparting the Gift of salvation), yet other people have opined that the POWER OF THE GOSPEL can impart grace and the ATONEMENT was truly for all of mankind (just as was Adam's curse).

The atonement isn't the means of grace in salvation (imv), it is the substitutionary payment for sin. (Sins of people meeting their just penalty.) A believer is taken out of Adam by being placed in Christ and his righteousness. Not by the atonement itself. Since the atonement is his death in payment of sins, if he died for every man, every man has his sins atoned for. It was for all mankind in that it wasn't restricted to any specific people groups or kept from any as God's people----which was not the way in the old covenant.

My view and why I think all five points equal the whole: The gospel all by itself does not impart grace, it is grace that it is given. It is the power unto salvation because believing it the way to eternal life. But scripture tells us (and was given in the OP) that the natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit and cannot even understand them. If the gospel was imparting grace, all would understand and believe. We receive Adam's curse simply by being born. We are set free of it by being born again---what Christ.

The only change is the Atonement removes the barrier of the Adamic curse between HUMANITY and GOD (just as Adam's sin raised it) and the GOSPEL (Holy Spirit/Living Word) empowers men to stop hiding and come to God for forgiveness.

See above. The Adamic curse still exists. It is still a barrier between humanity and God.

I have heard [but not read the INSTITUTES for myself] that John Calvin was not willing to fully embrace "L" because it made 'logical sense' but lacked irrefutable scripture support [which TU*IP has]. I was personally persuaded by the "bridge analogy" of Spurgeon that "L" was "more likely than not", but I cannot judge harshly a brother who reads scripture and concludes that "the whole world" really means "all mankind". That is not an unreasonable exegesis of scripture.

I can't speak for Calvin and neither can hearsay , I agree it is not an unreasonable interpretation of scripture. I would not go so far as to say it is a reasonable exegesis as per Spurgeon. I understand how it can be done, and is looked at, but in the end, carried all the way through, even in the little bit I did in explaining my view, pin holes in the bucket become big holes. But I agree it is to harshly judge a brother. We shouldn't be doing that anyway unless it is sin being judged as sin.

 

[atpollard]

I wonder then about people who claim to be a 2 point Calvinist or a 3 point Calvinist, etc.
Not sure if that would be consistent.

Funny story ...

I was a 4 point Calvinist for DECADES. For the first decade, I had never even heard the terms "Calvinst" or "Arminian". I was attending a Wesleyan Holiness Church [Church of God of Anderson Indiana] and reading the Bible and trying to reconcile my personal salvation experience [former Atheist] with the teaching from the pulpit. I came across 4 BIBLICAL TRUTHS that I would have stated as follows:

• People are no darn good.
• I have no idea why God chooses someone, but it sure isn't because we deserve it.
• God doesn't try, He just DOES!
• God finishes what God starts.

It was about two decades after my salvation that I attended an Adult Sunday School taught by a graduate of Moody and I first learned that there WAS a "Calvinist vs Arminian" debate. Comparing the 5-points of TULIP to my "4 BIBLE TRUTHS" immediately revealed a parallel to TU*IP ... I was a 4-point Calvinist.

I didn't embrace Unlimited Atonement, if you had asked me, I would have told you: "I never asked, Jesus never said and I consider it 'NONE OF MY BUSINESS' who Jesus chose to die for ... I am just very grateful that He died for Me (and that's good enough)."

It would be another two decades before I would finally accept [L] as true ... thanks to the arguments of Charles Spurgeon.

 

[Hazelelponi]

I think it goes along the facts of not everyone is a Calvinist, or Arminian.

so they may believe or agree with parts. and not other parts..

That's why we should never try to put people under isms, or doctrines. But listen to what they say with open minds and hearts.

People are kind of either one or the other.

For example: if you believe man has ability, even if that ability is just the tiniest bit, to respond to the Gospel call then you don't believe mans depravity is "total".

If you see even one condition on election then you don't believe in unconditional election.

However, if on the other hand you note the OP was incorrect to note there was only two options available in election as actually a 3rd option was perfectly justified for God to have taken advantage of... but for God... (@Arial) then your just making a point within the same point, which doesn't affect belief in unconditional election at all.

 

[Arial]

However, if on the other hand you note the OP was incorrect to note there was only two options as actually a 3rd option was perfectly justified for God to have taken advantage of, but for God... (@Arial) then your just making a point within the same point, and doesn't affect my belief in unconditional election.

I don't understand this. What is the third option? Other than he has no obligation to save anyone. It is by grace that he saves at all. Perhaps I should have put that in there but since the Doctrines of Grace are dealing with salvation, I didn't. But what is the other option? I am quite curious.

 

[Hazelelponi]

I don't understand this. What is the third option? Other than he has no obligation to save anyone. It is by grace that he saves at all. Perhaps I should have put that in there but since the Doctrines of Grace are dealing with salvation, I didn't. But what is the other option? I am quite curious.

That's it, not to save anyone.

I think freewill people think God owes them something, when God owes us nothing. What He gives is His gift.

(I would have noted it but it's only because this is something I am simply far more cognizant of, the gift of it).

 

[Arial]

That's it, not to save anyone.

I think freewill people think God owes them something, when God owes us nothing. What He gives is His gift.

(I would have noted it but it's only because this is something I am simply far more cognizant of, the gift of it).

That is why we hear things like if God chooses it isn't fair. Fair!? Where is a solid doctrine of God in that? How is that not defining God according to human feelings? I see the concept of God sending his Son to the cross to make atonement for sins and then leaving the result up to the decisions of people who are at enmity with him. not something that could be considered "fair" by anyone's standards. I think on that side of the fence there is a vast misunderstanding of grace. I never understood it until I started looking into Reformed theology.

I need to remember where I came from. There are a lot of words vital to an understanding of God, the knowledge of him, that are common in Christianity and used all the time, but never investigated. "Grace" was a wonderful word, and one I knew the meaning of. But the impact of it did not hit me and paint all else until I got the TULIP. Same thing with atonement, propitiation, justified, God's love for me, covenant and personal relationship with God. And the doctrinal position of A'ism (as it is usually categorized for the sake of simplicity) is the reason those were just words with definitions for me. So it is likely the case with others.

 

[Hazelelponi]

That is why we hear things like if God chooses it isn't fair. Fair!? Where is a solid doctrine of God in that? How is that not defining God according to human feelings? I see the concept of God sending his Son to the cross to make atonement for sins and then leaving the result up to the decisions of people who are at enmity with him. not something that could be considered "fair" by anyone's standards. I think on that side of the fence there is a vast misunderstanding of grace. I never understood it until I started looking into Reformed theology.

I need to remember where I came from. There are a lot of words vital to an understanding of God, the knowledge of him, that are common in Christianity and used all the time, but never investigated. "Grace" was a wonderful word, and one I knew the meaning of. But the impact of it did not hit me and paint all else until I got the TULIP. Same thing with atonement, propitiation, justified, God's love for me, covenant and personal relationship with God. And the doctrinal position of A'ism (as it is usually categorized for the sake of simplicity) is the reason those were just words with definitions for me. So it is likely the case with others.

I think my jaw hit the floor the first time I heard the word "fair" in relation to God and salvation. Like literally

though I have decided my own speech and word usage and even at times my own thinking can definitely improve. Definitions do matter, and I don't always have the respect for language that I should when trying to communicate. I do need to work on that.

 

[Arial]

This presupposes that the ATONEMENT is the exclusive MEANS of grace (imparting the Gift of salvation), yet other people have opined that the POWER OF THE GOSPEL can impart grace and the ATONEMENT was truly for all of mankind (just as was Adam's curse). The other 4 points remain unchanged. Man is still guilty of sin and condemned by that sin. God still draws unconditionally and irresistibly. Thuse saved are still sealed until redemption. The only change is the Atonement removes the barrier of the Adamic curse between HUMANITY and GOD (just as Adam's sin raised it) and the GOSPEL (Holy Spirit/Living Word) empowers men to stop hiding and come to God for forgiveness.

The "limit" of Unlimited Atonement is directly tied to Unconditional Election. The atonement is limited to the elect because Total Depravity makes election necessary.

It is grace that there is an atonement, but the atonement is itself not a means of grace but the WORK of Christ that mercy and justice might kiss.

 

[Carbon]

Total Depravity. The doctrinal teaching in Total Depravity states that mankind through the transgression of Adam is affected in all his being with sin. This includes his will which is moved by his desires. Those desires now contain both good and evil, not just good.This separates him from a holy God. God and man have become enemies. Though man retains the natural capacity to choose God, (he did not lose his will) to come to him in repentance, he no longer has the ability, in that he does not want to. In addition he is dead in his sins to any understanding of those spiritual things that was lost in the fall. He is completely helpless to reconcile himself to God.(Romans 8:7; 18-32; 3:9-18; Eph 2:1-10; 1 Cor 2:14)

How then can any be saved?

Unconditional Election. There are two options. God can save everyone or he can save some. Unconditional election in the Doctrines of Grace, means that God elects some for salvation. "Unconditional" means that God's choice is not conditioned upon or influenced by anything outside of God himself.

We know that not all are saved, so does God's word tell us that he elects some to salvation? It does, over and over again, and I will list a few of the places. But first we must consider who God is and not lose sight of that as we interpret any passage. Scripture shows us in the creation account that everything that is made is made by him, and is perfect in accordance with his own perfection; good in accordance with his own complete goodness; and it can only be for his purpose, and everything is subject to him. He shows us from the very beginning that he gives everything a purpose---including man who is the only made in his image and likeness---and provided all that is necessary for sustaining all things. We see throughout scripture, at every turn, God is always doing the choosing of everything, be it persons, places, times, events, boundaries, purpose. He is behind all the choices of men, even though the choices they make are real choices from their own desires and aims. We can see this most vividly in the story of Joseph, God's response to Assyria when he sent them in judgement of his people, and in the cross itself.

So what does he say concerning the elect? He refers to believers as the "called", the "foreknown" the "predestined to be conformed to the image of Christ", the "elect", the "chosen". (2 Tim 1:9; 1 Peter 2:9; 2 Peter 1:10; Eph 4:1; 1 Cor 1:9; Eph 1:4-5; Romans 8:29; Romans 8:23)

If no one can be saved unless God by grace elects them to salvation, what does this do to the atonement?

Limited Atonement. The use of "limited" has often been said, and rightly so, that it does not accurately describe the doctrine, and leads to instant rebellion against it in the minds of people. The more accurate term is Particular atonement. There is no limit to the power of Christ's sacrifice. However if no one can be saved unless God in his grace saves them by providing what is necessary for salvation; and if he elects some to save; then the atonement is of necessity made for the elect only. If it were made for all, and there was no election by God, then it had the potential, given man's slavery to sin, to not atone for anyone. And in fact could not as there are none willing, and none even able to hear the gospel and understand it in order to believe it. Believing is stated throughout the NT as being what joins one to Christ and gives eternal life.

So if Christ died for the elect, by what means is it assured that these elect will believe?

Irresistible Grace. This doctrine states that God's grace does exactly what he intends it to do. His grace regenerates, calls, and places the elect in Christ through faith, and faith is a gift of God. (Eph 2:1-10; John 3:1-15; John 6:35-65; John 10:22-30; John 1:12-13)

Perseverance of the Saints. If all of the above is true, salvation is all the work of God in a person, and therefore it is impossible that any will be lost. It is God who keeps them and works in them and finishes the work that he began.

Amen!

 

[Carbon]

I wonder then about people who claim to be a 2 point Calvinist or a 3 point Calvinist, etc.
Not sure if that would be consistent.

It’s not. Think of the five points as five legs on a chair. If you remove one leg, the chair collapses.

 

[Carbon]

That is self evident. But it was not the question being asked.

Everyone has "isms" and doctrines. It is what defines what they believe, whether or not it is a specific "ism" or doctrine. The entire NT epistles are laying the doctrinal foundation of Christ's church. A church without any specified doctrine is not the church of Christ. I do not understand where the idea that if someone is speaking of what is in a particular "ism" or doctrine that means they are trying to define the other person, or that their mind is closed and they do not understand what any one else says, is coming from.

It sounds to me like you are saying we should go along to get along and agree to disagree, rather than discuss anything. In which case the forum responses would amount to "I agree," or "I disagree." End of thread.

So, in connection with the OP: are there parts of the doctrines of grace that you agree with and others that you do not agree with?

Agreed, everyone has isms and doctrines, there is no escaping it.

 

[Carbon]

This presupposes that the ATONEMENT is the exclusive MEANS of grace (imparting the Gift of salvation), yet other people have opined that the POWER OF THE GOSPEL can impart grace and the ATONEMENT was truly for all of mankind (just as was Adam's curse). The other 4 points remain unchanged. Man is still guilty of sin and condemned by that sin. God still draws unconditionally and irresistibly. Thuse saved are still sealed until redemption. The only change is the Atonement removes the barrier of the Adamic curse between HUMANITY and GOD (just as Adam's sin raised it) and the GOSPEL (Holy Spirit/Living Word) empowers men to stop hiding and come to God for forgiveness.

I have heard [but not read the INSTITUTES for myself] that John Calvin was not willing to fully embrace "L" because it made 'logical sense' but lacked irrefutable scripture support [which TU*IP has]. I was personally persuaded by the "bridge analogy" of Spurgeon that "L" was "more likely than not", but I cannot judge harshly a brother who reads scripture and concludes that "the whole world" really means "all mankind". That is not an unreasonable exegesis of scripture.

But if you take one point, may as well take them all