TULIP Perplexity

[Major]

In a matter of speaking, yes. However, I was addressing the sermons from MacArthur, not so much the topic of Calvinism, nor extreme Calvinism. You're right. That will not be resolved in this timeline of existence.

MM

R C Sproul is a "PRETERIST" so pretty much anything he says must be filtered through that false teaching.

Please keep this friendly and scripturally conceptual in nature rather than to argue against the opinions of others. If you disagree with another, then simply ask questions. If you still disagree, then simply share your thoughts in a non-combative manner. I'm bringing this up because I value what the Lord may have given to others on this troubling topic.

As some of you likely know, TULIP is the acronym for concepts held to by the hardline Calvinists, of which I was of the understanding is the side upon which John MacArthur and RC Sproul always taught from.

This morning, I ran across a short from MacArthur talking about how tragic the losses are of the cultists and atheists alike, and their being lost to Hell.

If my understanding is correct about those two men mentioned above, then that sermon makes no sense, and the reasons being that TULIP adherents:

1) Believe that God intentionally predetermines who goes to Heaven and who goes to Hell
2) They do not concern themselves about any other basis by which such a decision is made, and therefore have nothing at which to point for deeper understanding, other than #3
3) It's perfectly just for God to intentionally predetermine who goes to Hell because of His Sovereignty

I could list more, but will let this suffice.

Now, if all those people going to Hell is indeed a tragedy, then it that not an accusation against God Himself...if He is the One who predetermines for everyone as to who goes where, irrespective of personal choice? How can it be said that, given TULIP theology, His perfect justice is therefore tragic in light of all those people who are Hell-bound?

How is ANY decision the Lord makes a matter of tragedy, whether in the framework of TULIP or any other, given that He is perfectly just? If the Lord predetermines who goes to Hell irrespective of the choice the individual might have otherwise made, then, to my thinking, He would not have stated His desire that ALL men be saved. He would then have within Himself an internal contradiction, which I do not believe exists in His nature at all.

Some have then carried this further by claiming that freedom then forced God to have to wait on individuals to make up their minds at some point in their lives.

This creates for itself yet another dichotomy, and is therefore self-defeating. None of the adherents to TULIP theology has ever been able to answer one prime question in it all...how does the Lord giving to mankind the freedom to choose violate His Sovereignty? If the Lord chose to wait upon each individual, then what difference would that make to us? Who made mankind arbiters over what's right with God, and what is not, irrespective of His own Sovereign choice for our salvation.

Where it's true that we cannot save ourselves on the basis of any freedom for a decision, it it is still, and will always remain, only Christ Jesus who saves anyone. It's also true that nobody comes to Christ except that they are drawn by the Father. Again, the TULIP adherents have utterly failed to explain any decision mechanism for the Father's drawing of any man. Perhaps that criteria will remain a mystery throughout all eternity, but it seems reasonable that a man's recognition of his sinful condition, and therefore His need for what he desires, which is to be saved, and given that the Lord looks upon the heart, perhaps that's the mechanism in a very simplistic basis for explanation.

If the Gospel is powerful, then it has the ability to reach and strike the chord of resonance in all men, with most rejecting that resonance, and some responding to it.

Thoughts?

MM

Thoughts?????

I do not think that this thread will be here for long. TOOOO BAD! It is a deep subject that needs to be taught and understood, BUT human nature to be right just will not allow it to be civil.

Now, before the axe falls, allow me to say to you all that there are 5 levels of Calvinism.......

1. Hyper-Calvinism:
Beliefs: God is the author of sin and man has no responsibility before God. The Gospel should only preached to the elect.

2. Ultra High Calvinism:
Beliefs: That the elect are in some sense eternally justified.
3. High Calvinism:
Beliefs: That God in no sense desires to save the reprobate, Most deny the Well-Meant Offer. Supralapsarian viewing God’s decrees. All hold to limited atonement.

4. Moderate Calvinism:
Beliefs: That God does in some sense desires to save the reprobate, Infralapsarian in viewing God’s decrees. Affirms Common Grace.

5. Low Calvinism:
Beliefs: That Christ died for all in a legal sense, so one can speak of Christ dying for the non-elect.

Now if you will sit and think it through, ALL of us are in one of those classes. From what I have read, John Macarther and John Piper are in the #4, maybe 4.5. FYI..........I would be about a 4.5 or 5.

Now, personally, I do not believe that Calvinism or Predestination is all that I am as a Christian.
I believe in the total sovereignty of God over all things (including salvation) and it certainly drives all that we do according to Psalm 135.6.

Now when I was active preaching, election wasn’t the topic of every sermon, actually very few in fact.
I have people who don’t hold my views, and it does not affect our fellowship and that is the way it should be.
When Bible texts address the issue, I deal with them one at a time.
I have never preached or taught part of a verse to avoid the “election” part.

That is my thoughts on this!

 

[Musicmaster]

Here is another short from MacArthur, which should serve to expose the seeming contradiction to his other video where he stated that those going to Hell is a tragedy? How can that be? If God created them for that purpose, then they are living and dying according to God's own design and purpose for them.

Please see these questions not so much as grappling with the voracity of TULIP, but just hitting at the concept of tragedy. Is it really a tragedy when God's alleged design and purpose for those lost people is implemented in accordance with His will?

What am I saying in all this? I don't believe that any part of God's purposeful design is tragic. What the Lord does purposefully is good, not tragic. So, please watch this and chime in with your thoughts about tragedy in relation with what some think is His will.

 

[Musicmaster]

R C Sproul is a "PRETERIST" so pretty much anything he says must be filtered through that false teaching.

Thoughts?????

I do not think that this thread will be here for long. TOOOO BAD! It is a deep subject that needs to be taught and understood, BUT human nature to be right just will not allow it to be civil.

Now, before the axe falls, allow me to say to you all that there are 5 levels of Calvinism.......

1. Hyper-Calvinism:
Beliefs: God is the author of sin and man has no responsibility before God. The Gospel should only preached to the elect.

2. Ultra High Calvinism:
Beliefs: That the elect are in some sense eternally justified.
3. High Calvinism:
Beliefs: That God in no sense desires to save the reprobate, Most deny the Well-Meant Offer. Supralapsarian viewing God’s decrees. All hold to limited atonement.

4. Moderate Calvinism:
Beliefs: That God does in some sense desires to save the reprobate, Infralapsarian in viewing God’s decrees. Affirms Common Grace.

5. Low Calvinism:
Beliefs: That Christ died for all in a legal sense, so one can speak of Christ dying for the non-elect.

Now if you will sit and think it through, ALL of us are in one of those classes. From what I have read, John Macarther and John Piper are in the #4, maybe 4.5. FYI..........I would be about a 4.5 or 5.

Now, personally, I do not believe that Calvinism or Predestination is all that I am as a Christian.
I believe in the total sovereignty of God over all things (including salvation) and it certainly drives all that we do according to Psalm 135.6.

Now when I was active preaching, election wasn’t the topic of every sermon, actually very few in fact.
I have people who don’t hold my views, and it does not affect our fellowship and that is the way it should be.
When Bible texts address the issue, I deal with them one at a time.
I have never preached or taught part of a verse to avoid the “election” part.

That is my thoughts on this!

I like your approach to this topic, but my aim is to discuss the idea that MacArthur put forth, given his beliefs, that it's a tragedy for anyone to go to Hell. Please see Post #22 above, and also Post #14 on the previous page. I'm not trying to discuss the merits of TULIP, but rather the idea of "tragedy," and how that applies to those who are allegedly going to Hell by God's own predestined design for them.

MM

 

[Siloam]

If this goes too far beyond allowable limits, the moderators may delete this post as they see proper.

God and His relationship with His people (us) cannot truly be defined. He reaches each of us individually while maintaining His unchanging nature in all things.

There are several attempts to provide illustrations that help us understand and remember aspects of His nature, even if His fullness remains beyond us.

So let me give my observations (not claiming they are anything new, nor particularly insightful):

There is a tendency when talking about the almighty to use superlatives in all things. If something is 'good' then God must exhibit that thing to the fullest. If something is bad than anything that contrasts with God must be that in the fullest way.

Thus in the Tulip illustration, we are not just fallen, but innately depraved without a spec of non depravity within us. (Adam became a living man when God breathed into him - we are spiritually animated by God's Spirit which I hesitate to denigrate)

Calvinists reason: If there is a choice to be made, than God must be fully in complete control of that choice.
But, tho I understand the temptation to describe God (and man) in this way, I also see God as a God of nuance. Who's ability to fathom the depths of man is enabled by His compassion.

In the end, it is the compassionate expression of His nature that binds us to the cross, and while we can talk about the wages of sin and how repentance and forgiveness comes to play, in the end these are further descriptions of salvation.

It is just as true to say it is all the choice ( I hesitate to use the word 'WHIM' ) of God (Rom 9:14).

While TULIP may me useful to structure some analyses of the nature of both God and Man, It is a description and should not be taken to be a definition or standard which all things must be measured against. (Calvinists will not agree with me)

By the way... The Molinists (as I recently come to learn) took TULIP and 'softened' it to:

ROSES:

R - Radical Depravity = every aspect of our being is affected by the fall and rendered incapable of saving ourselves

O - Overcoming Grace = God’s persistent beckoning that overcomes our wicked obstinacy

S - Sovereign Election = God desires the salvation of all, yet accentuates that our salvation is not based on us choosing God but on God choosing us.

E- Eternal Life = believers enjoy a transformed life that is preserved and we are given a faith that will remain.

S - Singular Redemption = Christ died sufficiently for every person, although efficiently only for those who believe.

The details and mechanics of Molinism is a little complicated involving knowledge God has, but cannot change (middle knowledge) without major intrusion into created nature and 'solves' some dilemas with Free Will vs Divine Predestination.

 

[Major]

I like your approach to this topic, but my aim is to discuss the idea that MacArthur put forth, given his beliefs, that it's a tragedy for anyone to go to Hell. Please see Post #22 above, and also Post #14 on the previous page. I'm not trying to discuss the merits of TULIP, but rather the idea of "tragedy," and how that applies to those who are allegedly going to Hell by God's own predestined design for them.

MM

I understand. I was only giving a little context for those who may not know.

Now may I say to you, when I was young in the ministry there was a season of great torment mentally and emotionally over theological issues like this. I have tasted what it means to put my hands on my desk, face in my hands and cry out to God: I don’t get this!!!!!!

A second thing I would say about this is that God never, never sends, never will send anyone to hell unjustly. In fact God does not send anyone to hell. That is a choice! No one will ever be in hell who does not deserve to be there. And this fact that they deserve to be there will be open and plain in all the universe in that day of judgment.

Third point is that if God ordains ahead of time that anyone will perish he does it in a way which is probably inscrutable to us and beyond our understanding. He does it in a way that the person is really responsible, really accountable for his choices, really guilty, really deserving of punishment. That is the hardest thing to grasp for me!

 

[Musicmaster]

I understand. I was only giving a little context for those who may not know.

Now may I say to you, when I was young in the ministry there was a season of great torment mentally and emotionally over theological issues like this. I have tasted what it means to put my hands on my desk, face in my hands and cry out to God: I don’t get this!!!!!!

A second thing I would say about this is that God never, never sends, never will send anyone to hell unjustly. In fact God does not send anyone to hell. That is a choice! No one will ever be in hell who does not deserve to be there. And this fact that they deserve to be there will be open and plain in all the universe in that day of judgment.

Third point is that if God ordains ahead of time that anyone will perish he does it in a way which is probably inscrutable to us and beyond our understanding. He does it in a way that the person is really responsible, really accountable for his choices, really guilty, really deserving of punishment. That is the hardest thing to grasp for me!

Again, I like some of your take on all this.

What I would ask is that you address that one, pesky descriptor MacArthur applied to those who are lost, which is "tragic." The merits, or lack thereof, about TULIP or ROSES, or whatever, these are not the thrust of my question here.

Assuming, for the sake of conversation, the entirety of the dogma of TULIP is true, and God therefore intentionally consigns most of the historic population of this earth to Hell, how can that be considered a tragedy if it's actually God's will?

I'm left wondering as to if MacArthur is bemoaning what he has taught to be the intended will of God for most, or did he misspeak, was he having a senior moment, or is there some sort of real continuity between the loss of the majority of humanity to the fires of Hell, and it still being a genuine tragedy? That seems contradictory. How can it be true, and yet contradictory at the same time?

MM

 

[Major]

Again, I like some of your take on all this.

What I would ask is that you address that one, pesky descriptor MacArthur applied to those who are lost, which is "tragic." The merits, or lack thereof, about TULIP or ROSES, or whatever, these are not the thrust of my question here.

Assuming, for the sake of conversation, the entirety of the dogma of TULIP is true, and God therefore intentionally consigns most of the historic population of this earth to Hell, how can that be considered a tragedy if it's actually God's will?

I'm left wondering as to if MacArthur is bemoaning what he has taught to be the intended will of God for most, or did he misspeak, was he having a senior moment, or is there some sort of real continuity between the loss of the majority of humanity to the fires of Hell, and it still being a genuine tragedy? That seems contradictory. How can it be true, and yet contradictory at the same time?

MM

I have NO idea brother. Personally.......I think that it is a tragedy if anyone goes to hell!

 

[Prim90]

Once again, it appears you have missed what I was saying.

Perhaps this will clarify it for you:

MacArthur stated that those going to Hell is a tragedy. My question was, in relation to his supportive stance on Tulip...how can it be tragic for anyone to end up in Hell if God is the One who allegedly decided they were created for that purpose? If their going to Hell was God's own design for them, then how is that a tragedy? That seems to imply that God creates that tragedy for some purpose. What could that be? How is populating Hell by design a tragedy if that is His predetermined plan?

Do you understand this better?

MM your contention with Mr MacArthur is because he said that it is a tragedy for people to end up in hell because of his supportive stance on Tulip regarding Gods predetermined plan. God certainly has always had a predetermined plan and that be to seperate the sheep from the goats. Or can God only predetermine his elect before the foundation of the world and not predetermine who goes to hell ? Jesus Christ wept over Jerusalem of the future tragedy that would befall the city. And what a tragedy it was. Is Christ to be found guilty for merely bewailing that tragedy for much of Jerusalem’s population of their rejection and to their future eternity? Is God the Father to be criticised for saying that he takes no pleasure in the the death of the wicked ? Ezekiel 33:11 when he has predetermined MM I find no no wrong in what Mr MacArthur stated in saying that it be a tragedy for people to end up hell. And in no wise contradicts the predetermined plan of God. If that be your contention I’m sorry I just don’t see the connection. .

 

[Papa Smurf]

Hello Musicmaster, et al, I started looking into MacArthur's teaching, and what I thought to be a reasonable starting point, his Commentary on 1 Timothy 2:4, I found to be interesting, so I thought that'd I'd share an excerpt from it here. Since his commentaries appear to be little more than augmented versions of his sermons (which makes perfect sense for a pastor), I think it's safe to say that this is what he believes and teaches. Here is the quote from his 1 Timothy Commentary.

1 Timothy 2:4 Our earnest desire ought to be for the salvation of ~all~ sinners (cf. Romans 9:3,10:1). We are not to try to limit evangelism to the elect only.​

​

There are two reasons for this. First, God’s decree of election is secret. We do not know who the elect are and have no way of knowing until they respond to the gospel. ​

​

Second, the scope of God’s evangelistic purposes is broader than election. “Many are called, but few are chosen” .. Matthew 22:14. Even Jesus’ high priestly prayer does embrace the world in this important regard. Our Lord prayed for unity among the elect so that the truth of the gospel would be made clear to the world: “that the world may believe that Thou didst send Me.… that the world may know that Thou didst send Me” (John 17:21, 23). ​

​

God’s call to ~all~ sinners is a bona fide and sincere invitation to salvation: “ ‘As I live!’ declares the Lord God, ‘I take no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but rather that the wicked turn from his way and live. Turn back, turn back from your evil ways! Why then will you die, O house of Israel?’ ” .. Ezekiel 33:11. ~MacArthur, J. F., Jr. (1995). 1 Timothy (p. 68). Moody Press.​

So, it seems to me that MacArthur's (and Sproul's?) teaching/belief about this topic may (at the very least) be a bit more complex that you are giving him credit for I have some additional points to make about the atonement, as well Biblical election and predestination, but I'll have to do so when I return.

God bless you!!

--Papa Smurf

 

[Papa Smurf]

As some of you likely know, TULIP is the acronym for concepts held to by the hardline Calvinists, of which I was of the understanding is the side upon which John MacArthur and RC Sproul always taught from.

This morning, I ran across a short from MacArthur talking about how tragic the losses are of the cultists and atheists alike, and their being lost to Hell.

If my understanding is correct about those two men mentioned above, then that sermon makes no sense............

Hello again Musicmaster, along with what you mean by a "hardline" Calvinist, I was also hoping that you could post the MacArthur "short" or "sermon" (whichever it is) that you mentioned in the OP so that we can see for ourselves what he has to say. I'm assuming that he did not tie his "short" or "sermon" into TULIP somehow (that you are making that connection for him, yes?), but it would be nice to see it in any case (since our comments in this thread, at least to some degree, are in response to it).

Thanks for your help with this (gotta go/hope to return tonight .. Dv)

--Papa Smurf

 

[Papa Smurf]

Many denominations have abandoned their Founder's creeds.

My former denomination, the PCUSA, certainly did

The PCA and OPC are still conservative Presbyterian denominations (still holding to infallibility/inerrancy, and to the Westminster Standards), unlike the PCUSA, which is now, sadly, far more Unitarian than Christian (IMHO).

--Papa Smurf

 

[crossnote]

My thoughts were about the seeming inconsistency in MacArthur's words. For the men I have heard teach that those who go to Hell were assigned to that place irrespective of any choice they might have made otherwise, how is that a tragedy? If God pre-ordains who will go to Heaven and who will go to Hell, how is it a tragedy for those who go to Hell?

This seems to be entering the area of the supralapsarian/infralapsarian debate regarding the issue whether God ordained individuals to salvation before/after the Fall.
This enters the arena of philosophy, is highly speculative and cannot be supported (either way) by Scripture.

 

[blueskies]

This morning, I ran across a short from MacArthur talking about how tragic the losses are of the cultists and atheists alike, and their being lost to Hell.

As I had stated in the OP, I was perplexed at the thought that there is any "tragedy" attached to the loss of so many going into the fires of Hell.

...how can it be tragic for anyone to end up in Hell

In reading this thread I found it was wonderfully eclectic and I found much of interest. Thank you all for your thoughts and sharing.

A different and non-Biblical take on the OP’s question might address the idea of tragedy itself. In a sense, tragedy is a relative viewpoint, not a judgment.

The word tragedy comes to us via Latin from the Greek tragōidia.

For the Greeks a tragedy is a serious story with a sad ending. Regardless of cause or merit, going to hell would certainly seem to be a sad fate by any measure of human compassion and a tragic ending for any child of God.

The video isn’t available for reference or context, but perhaps this was an expression of compassion and not a theological viewpoint.

 

[forgiven61]

inconsistency in MacArthur's words.

i like MacArthur his biggest problem is he is indoctrinated die hard Calvinist will call you a false teacher if you disagree with any part of the doctrine . yes i have studied it out. it still makes me cross eyed parts i agree with parts i don't. i have done email correspondence with a Calvinist who tried his best to convert me over

my 2 cents subjects like this will never be settled ..btw in Calvinism the teach p.o.s perseverance of the saints those truly saved will stay with it. where as the southern bapt and other bapt teach o.s.a.s the gen baapt teach you can walk away and be lost again.

no i am not interested in trying to say who is right who is wrong. i simply am making a point that will be ignored .

can you just imagine when we get to heaven and find out we all may have been wrong and those we deemed not saved was saved LOL that should shake things up

 

[Major]

This seems to be entering the area of the supralapsarian/infralapsarian debate regarding the issue whether God ordained individuals to salvation before/after the Fall.
This enters the arena of philosophy, is highly speculative and cannot be supported (either way) by Scripture.

We knew that it would..........didn't we?????

 

[Siloam]

In other threads I have previously stated my observation/conjecture that since God necessarily exists apart from time (He created everything, including time itself) He has direct access to all parts of Time and thus knows the choices and ultimate fate of His creatures within Time while we experience it moment by moment with the past being solidified while the future is only anticipated. I further stated that if you examine events from God’s perspective you get a pre-known future where man’s choices are pre-known by ojur omniscient God and static, but if you look from Man’s viewpoint you see life with an endless series of choices that we make as they present themselves.

If Fore-knowledge by a omnipotent God means predestination (which I do not necessarily hold) then predestination is certainly called for. But I see no point where God’s foreknowledge is imposed on the choices a man makes, so Free-Will is what one finds if one keeps the viewpoint of man when analyzing events.

Whether this is Tragedy or not, as this thread is trying to examine, is a value judgement based again upon which viewpoint one holds as being operative. If I were sent to Hell, I would judge that a tragedy regardless of whether I ‘deserved' it; After all, I am taking my own personal side. But in the final determination it is not a failing of God but of my own. I would still consider it a tragedy but that is only from my perspective, not God’s, not the angels, not the saved persons that end up serving God in heaven.

I do look forward to heaven even though I do not deserve it based on my understanding of God’s saving grace on the cross, and my acceptance of that grace, not my own merit.

 

[Major]

In other threads I have previously stated my observation/conjecture that since God necessarily exists apart from time (He created everything, including time itself) He has direct access to all parts of Time and thus knows the choices and ultimate fate of His creatures within Time while we experience it moment by moment with the past being solidified while the future is only anticipated. I further stated that if you examine events from God’s perspective you get a pre-known future where man’s choices are pre-known by ojur omniscient God and static, but if you look from Man’s viewpoint you see life with an endless series of choices that we make as they present themselves.

If Fore-knowledge by a omnipotent God means predestination (which I do not necessarily hold) then predestination is certainly called for. But I see no point where God’s foreknowledge is imposed on the choices a man makes, so Free-Will is what one finds if one keeps the viewpoint of man when analyzing events.

Whether this is Tragedy or not, as this thread is trying to examine, is a value judgement based again upon which viewpoint one holds as being operative. If I were sent to Hell, I would judge that a tragedy regardless of whether I ‘deserved' it; After all, I am taking my own personal side. But in the final determination it is not a failing of God but of my own. I would still consider it a tragedy but that is only from my perspective, not God’s, not the angels, not the saved persons that end up serving God in heaven.

I do look forward to heaven even though I do not deserve it based on my understanding of God’s saving grace on the cross, and my acceptance of that grace, not my own merit.

Yep. Well said!

I think part of the problem is the definition of ....."Mans free will".

Personally, I do not believe that we have ultimate self-determination, but we will all give an account to God for our choices.
So then, If God is sovereign over the human will, are we responsible? Yes, we are. The Bible says so over and over again that we are. Our choices are our choices. They are true choices. We have a will. Our will is active. We are genuine moral agents.
Remember this......No one can come to Jesus, no one can believe, unless God grants him the faith to believe!

WE are in the middle of talking about election. I wonder how many reading this understand it. May I say to all of you that this subject is one of the hardest to wrap your brain around. To this day, after all my years, I still have problems. Actually There are actually TWO views=
1. CONDITIONAL
2. UNCONDITIONAL.

#1. Conditional election is the view that man’s “free will” decision to accept Christ as Savior is the basis for his/her election.

#2. UN-conditional election is God’s sovereign will that determines who is elected and who is not.

 

[Siloam]

If Musicmaster is asking generally whether a holy God is able to do anything that is properly termed ‘EVIL’ or ‘WRONG’ or indeed ‘TRAGIC', I would point out that to do so requires one to put some standard above God Himself.

I have from time to time considered this in various forms and always came to the conclusion that God and His will IS the standard by which all things are fundamentally measured while He Himself is cannot be judged.

 

[crossnote]

I have from time to time considered this in various forms and always came to the conclusion that God and His will IS the standard by which all things are fundamentally measured while He Himself is cannot be judged.

Just wondering, would that mean for example that God could lie and that would be the standard by which He would betray His word?

 

[Siloam]

Just wondering, would that mean for example that God could lie and that would be the standard by which He would betray His word?

One of the key things about the God that is is how everything is works together within His will. If one goes about changing one thing it becomes logically unstable as your example demonstrates, so one must make other changes to compensate (not a trivial task).

So if one is to engage in this kind of what-if's, which I do from time to time, one must come up with a proposed complete (or at least more complete) description of the new regime.

But, in general, all imaginable spiritual standards of 'goodness' have the definition of goodness being in concert with the desires of God.