The Highway Forums General Discussion Theology Discussion Forum TULIP Question

First of all, I am glad to see the Highway up and running again.

I am presently writing an article on TULIP and I want to include information that I think is applicable to my article.
I believe years ago I read an article that perhaps was posted on the Highway that said something to the point that if even one point of TULIP was proven false, then all 5 points would fall like a house of cards.
Does this article ring a bell to anyone? I was unable to locate it on the Highway search engine.

Would you agree with the premise that if one of the points were proven un-biblical then all 5 would fall like a house of cards?
Why, why not?

Tom

The deceased Dr. Edwin Palmer wrote, "All five points of Calvinism hang or fall together..." (The Five Points of Calvinism, Baker Books [Grand Rapids, Michigan], 1980 enlarged edition, p. 69).

Yes, the Five Points make up an integral and inseparable unit. There cannot be any disunity within the economic Trinity and thus since God is the Author of salvation, each and every point is not only logical but necessary.

Thanks Pilgrim

If you can elaborate on any of that I would appreciate it.
If you don't have time, I will understand.

Tom

Tom,

I really don't have time at the moment. What I can commend to you is a suggestion for you to think through each of the "Five Points" and ponder what part each of the three persons of the trinity are involved and the relationship that exists within the trinity. Here's a hint: Jh 12:49,50; 17:1ff.

So, if any of the Five Points is diminished or discarded then the unity/harmony of the trinity is proportionately effected. Hopefully, this will provide a good boost in understanding the verity of the original question concerning the inherent integrity of the infamous "Five Points".

I have heard it said that it is all 5 points or none. I think it rests upon the various descriptions people give to the 5 points. There are those who ascribed to Amyraldism who tinkers with the 'limited atonement'. I think they say that no one can choose God, but somehow they can reject Him. They will point to some verses that appears as if a person rejects God. But with this view, it appears to me that election follows man's rejection or not. Somehow universalism plays a role, but I cannot understand completely how.

This is Wikipedia's article on Amyraldism. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amyraldism

Just a thought. The way we see election today is the results. It is the result of people choices. The term 'elect' in the Bible conveys the choice of God, not of people. Therein, that may be a problem with today as we come from a more individualistic and democratic mindsets.

Pilgrim

Glad you could provide me with something to ponder.
As you may have guessed why I am asking these questions has to do with people I know who embrace only 4 of the 5 points.

Also, I want to touch on the issue of "double predestination". I have friends who agree that "double predestination" makes logical sense. However, they don't see it taught in Scripture, therefore, they do not believe logic should be part of the equation. Some say that "predestination" is biblical for the elect, but not for the non-elect.
I believe Romans 9 speaks on "double predestination", but some 5 pointers disagree totally with this.

Tom

There are a number of salient articles in this section: The Atonement of the Lord Christ. One in particular which you will doubtless benefit from is by Charles W. Bronson, The Extent of the Atonement. Of course, there is the unassailable John Owen challenge/statement, For Whom Did Christ Die?.

1. One must be careful about dispensing with 'logic', especially since 'logic' originates with God. The Scriptures encourage us to use 'logic', e.g., Isa 1:18; Acts 17:2; 18:4.
2. To hold to a view that asserts that God exercised His divine power and authority in predestinating some (the elect) to salvation, but had no involvement with the damnation of the non-elect, you are left with nothing more than Deism and not biblical Christianity. Is there anything which does not exist and is under God's providence to bring to pass all that He has so willed? To answer in the affirmative is to embrace Atheism.
3. There are lots of salient articles on this issue HERE. Of course, there is R.C. Sproul's classic article (btw, this is the #1 accessed article on The Highway), Double Predestination.

I heartily agree with you that Romans 9 is more than relevant and sets forth "double" predestination.

Pilgrim


I am glad that you agree with me. I thought I would ask you if you could state what in particular in Romans 9 convinces you that it sets forth "double" predestination.

Tom

Tom,

I would guess the entire chapter could be quoted, but here are a few passages which appear to me to set forth God's descriminating predestination and election BOTH for the elect and the reprobate:

Romans 9:11-13 (ASV) "for [the children] being not yet born, neither having done anything good or bad, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth, it was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger. Even as it is written, Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated."

Romans 9:18 (ASV) "So then he hath mercy on whom he will, and whom he will be hardeneth."

Romans 9:21-23 (ASV) "Or hath not the potter a right over the clay, from the same lump to make one part a vessel unto honor, and another unto dishonor? What if God, willing to show his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering vessels of wrath fitted unto destruction: and that he might make known the riches of his glory upon vessels of mercy, which he afore prepared unto glory,"