# Which of the 5 points was the hardest to grasp?



## matthew11v25 (Jan 27, 2005)

Which of the 5 points was the hardest struggle and drove you to study the most? And what was the verse/book that put the nail in the coffin.

[Edited on 1-27-2005 by matthew11v25]


----------



## Abd_Yesua_alMasih (Jan 27, 2005)

Limited Atonement - I still struggle with it. On big thing for me was getting into a discussion with a missionary in India. He was 'arminian' (a hyper conservative one though - not a modern christian) and he gave me all sorts of verse against limited atonement. I defeated each of them and showed him why they were out of context etc... eventually in dispair he said "well what does your heart tell you? Do you believe God is truly like this?" - I reply "It does not matter what my heart tells me - I should base my beliefs on scripture" Suddenly the both of us found common ground for some strange reason and the topic all of a sudden changed to modern music. Even though I disagreed with him on the doctrines of grace he was a good change from my apostolic friends who are so unlike me I find it hard to imagine I lasted so long...

Anyway back to the topic at hand - I still struggle with Limited Atonement but after seeing a 18/19 year old (it was my birthday ) drive an old preacher to dispair in a debate was rather comforting...


----------



## Larry Hughes (Jan 27, 2005)

I accepted the 5 points pretty quick as a whole and it "immediately" made sense to me that the 5 points are really one whole - to remove one denied necessarily the others. Four pointers always where inconsistent in my thinking. Also, it answered my innocent native question and for my own experience of conversion, I knew that I had nothing to do with it - I directly opposed & ran from God every time.

As for a verse(s) that fixed it: John 6:44,65, John 2 (Jesus speaking with Nicodeman), Romans 9.

None the less that is the hardest one, I'd say for us to accept. Though I did that doesn't mean I didn't struggle with it. I would also hazard to guess that this one is the one that precipitates most hyper-calvinism.
Larry


----------



## ReformedWretch (Jan 27, 2005)

irresistible Grace, sometimes a Lutheran will make a good point, but I believe!


----------



## bond-servant (Jan 27, 2005)

Limited Atonement. It's opposite everything I've been taught in the Baptist church for over a decade. 
I see the scriptural support, and I'm still working towards it.......


----------



## Average Joey (Jan 27, 2005)

I agree Limited Atonement.However I never liked the word limited used here.It seems like a small number.Maybe it should be called Atonement That cannot be numbered.Especially considering what Revelation says:

Rev 7:9 After this I beheld, and, lo, a great multitude, which no man could number, of all nations, and kindreds, and people, and tongues, stood before the throne, and before the Lamb, clothed with white robes, and palms in their hands;

That doesn`t sound very limited to me.Looks as a glass that has overflowed with drink.

[Edited on 1-27-2005 by Average Joey]


----------



## ReformedWretch (Jan 27, 2005)

I guess I am going to be alone in my pick. Maybe it's working the job I do. I see so many that seem to repent only to go right beck to wicked lifestyles.


----------



## Ivan (Jan 27, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Average Joey_
> 
> That doesn`t sound very limited to me.Looks as a glass that has overflowed with drink.



Yet it is limited to those God elected, whatever the number might be.


----------



## Average Joey (Jan 27, 2005)

> _Originally posted by joshua_
> Joe, many call it "particular redemption" or "definite atonement" to avoid confusion. I like "limited atonement" just fine. It's limited in its extent. Armian belief limits its efficacy.



I guess we could say to us it doesn`t look very limited.We should be looking at who are saved and stand in awe that God saved that many!

Edited to add Just to clarify that I do believe in limited atonemant.I just didn`t like how the word limited sounded.It sounds so small.

[Edited on 1-27-2005 by Average Joey]


----------



## ReformedWretch (Jan 27, 2005)

> I just didn`t like how the word limited sounded.It sounds so small.



Matt 7:13Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat:


14Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Jan 27, 2005)

Election was my stumbling block. Once I got over that, the rest just fell into place.


----------



## ReformedWretch (Jan 27, 2005)

Nice cliche" Josh!

And yay for Patrick's response so I am no longer the lone ranger with one vote somewhere else.


----------



## Ivan (Jan 27, 2005)

> _Originally posted by joshua_
> For me, grasping the doctrines wasn't the difficult part. It was accepting them and casting down my pride that was the real struggle.



Whoa! Excellent point. I've not given that much thought, but come to think of it, that's EXACTLY true in my case also. Oh, how prideful and deceitful the wicked human heart is!


----------



## satz (Jan 27, 2005)

I guess 'L' was hard for me simply because it was strange ( and frightening) to except that not every human being on the planet could possibly be saved. It was also pretty disturbing to apply that to your loved ones and friends...and to myself!

Strangely though, once i did believe them, the 5 points, and even the L were kinda comforting. Limited atonement especially, answered a lot of the nagging doubts i had about the nature of God, like 'why doesn't God do more to save people if he loves them so much?'

In fact, i would even say that the 5 points are one of the things that really comforted me when confronted by people who try to claim God does not exist. After all, here was a plan of salvation that couldn't possibly be made up by humans trying to start their own religon. No one wants a predestinating God...especially not when eternity is at stake. And even if someone could somehow make up such a God, the human mind most certainly could not conceive that a God who predestines his creatures would also chose to die for them...


----------



## ReformedWretch (Jan 27, 2005)

Excellent points Mark!


----------



## Average Joey (Jan 27, 2005)

> _Originally posted by houseparent_
> 
> 
> > I just didn`t like how the word limited sounded.It sounds so small.
> ...



I agree Adam.I am just saying limited sounds like we would get to heaven and see only a hundred people.hehehehe


----------



## ReformedWretch (Jan 27, 2005)

Sometimes I think that day to day.


----------



## Ivan (Jan 27, 2005)

> _Originally posted by houseparent_
> Sometimes I think that day to day.



Oh, yes, me too!


----------



## Average Joey (Jan 27, 2005)

> _Originally posted by houseparent_
> Sometimes I think that day to day.


----------



## satz (Jan 27, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Ivan_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by houseparent_
> ...




eh...does any find this kinda depressing though...one thing about growing in the knowledge of God is that where once everything looked rosy and everyone you knew was going to heaven, now....


----------



## matthew11v25 (Jan 27, 2005)

Everyone seems to know what Biblical doctrine was the hardest to come to grips with. What was a crucial verse/book that gave assurance of this doctrine?

mine were:
The whole Bible (when I read it in context)
Romans 9 (Election)
"sovereignty of God" A.W. Pink


----------



## ReformedWretch (Jan 27, 2005)

> eh...does any find this kinda depressing though...one thing about growing in the knowledge of God is that where once everything looked rosy and everyone you knew was going to heaven, now....



Yes, I can feel that way at times.



> Everyone seems to know what Biblical doctrine was the hardest to come to grips with. What was a crucial verse/book that gave assurance of this doctrine?



John 6:37All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.


----------



## Me Died Blue (Jan 27, 2005)

> _Originally posted by puritansailor_
> Election was my stumbling block. Once I got over that, the rest just fell into place.



Same here. As weird as this is, I ended up believing a twisted form of all other four points, but remained a synergist, because I could not accept the "unconditional" in election, because I was not ready to led go of my autonomy, yet had been Scripturally convinced of the other four. I basically thought that all men are totally depraved and thus unable to turn to God without regeneration, and that God conditionally elected people based on their foreseen faith, and that He sent Christ to only die for those elect, and that He gave those people whom He had elected a drawing by the Holy Spirit, but the only reason the "grace" was always effectual was because He only gave it to those He had foreseen would accept it with a bit of help, hence the elect, and as for P, well, knowing that they would persevere was part of the conditions for electing as well! 

So I could technically say I believed a form of all other points but unconditional election - but when I was convined by Scripture that the election itself was unconditional, as you said Patrick, the other points just fell in (their proper) place.

Weird story, I know - I held that "view" for a couple months.


----------



## lionovjudah (Jan 27, 2005)

I have issues with "I" being called irresistible.

I believe it would be better described as irrejectable. Because I know Scripture speaks of resisting God. And the elect will eventually succomb to his proddings. 

Limited atonement was the easiest for me.


----------



## Me Died Blue (Jan 27, 2005)

> _Originally posted by lionovjudah_
> I have issues with "I" being called irresistible.
> 
> I believe it would be better described as irrejectable. Because I know Scripture speaks of resisting God.



Indeed, but the "I" in TULIP is only referring to the grace of regeneration, rather than all grace.


----------



## lionovjudah (Jan 27, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Me Died Blue_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by lionovjudah_
> ...



Is that stating that the Work of the Holy Spirit in regeneration is hidden to the elect? I am confused what youre trying to say. I never heard it defined that way. And also there is a time lapse between regeneration and conversion? 


Joe


----------



## Me Died Blue (Jan 27, 2005)

> _Originally posted by lionovjudah_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Me Died Blue_
> ...



Definitely - since Reformed theology has always recognized the existence of common grace given to all, which is why the "Irresistible Grace" is basically just the doctrine of a monergistic regeneration, and that the Spirit's work in regeneration is indeed limited to the elect, and that none of it can be resisted. I could post some Scriptures if you wanted clarifying it as referring to regeneration rather than any other type of grace.



> _Originally posted by lionovjudah_
> And also there is a time lapse between regeneration and conversion?



Most would say there can be, but isn't always. One good example is John the Baptist, since he was regenerate in the womb, but could not have been converted with the Word until later.


----------



## lionovjudah (Jan 27, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Me Died Blue_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by lionovjudah_
> ...




I believe there is also Chris. This could digrees the thread, but I also believe Scripture warrants a difference between quickening / regeneration/ conversion. 

Common grace is another issue that has been beaten to death. I deny common grace as a saving grace, I believe it is more of a providence. But then a great Scripture was thrown at me... Isaiah 26:10.. read that and those of us who deny common grace have to think this one out. 

Perhaps I need to clarify my struggle with "I".

Let me just post this scripture:

"But Esaias is very bold, and saith, I was found of them that sought me not; I was made manifest unto them that asked not after me. But to Israel he saith, all day long I have stretched forth my hands unto a disobedient and gainsaying people.""”Romans 10:20-21.


This is an antimony. The first part speaks of Gods Sovereignty, the second speaks of mans responsibility. I have always had an issue when a person asks me if my God is sincere. 

WHy woudl HE stretch out His hands all the days long?


----------



## Augusta (Jan 27, 2005)

I put limited atonement. I am a very empathetic person. If anyone is crying I am crying too. I have a very soft heart (thank you Lord) but it makes me really sad for the lost. I know that God is just and all of that but I still struggle occasionally with it. 

I accepted predestination almost immediately on an intellectual/logical level. I new it was true. My heart took longer. I also had 20 years of arminianism to counteract. I also like someone above mentioned had alot of pride. I had always been a christian and had managed to make fairly good choices in my life. I of course gave myself all of the credit for this and thought everyone else was just stupid for not seeing what I saw. So predestination was humbing and very good for me. I am now at God's feet and not trying to be up on the throne with him.


----------



## Scot (Jan 27, 2005)

My introduction to "Calvinism" was a little different because I didn't know it was called "Calvinism" or that it was arranged as "TULIP."

Some of you are going to cringe but my introduction to the doctrines of grace came from listening to Family Radio and Harold Camping. I ran across the station one night in the car and heard the open forum program. I began listening and learned about election, limited atonement, irresistible grace, total depravity and perseverance of the saints with time. 

I would listen to the program with an open bible, looking up all the references that he gave in answer to people's questions. Hearing Camping say that Christ didn't die for everyone made me read my bible even more (at first to prove him wrong). It kinda all fell together for me. Later on, when I started going to church, I was introduced to reformed material and learned that I was a Calvinist.


----------



## Larry Hughes (Jan 27, 2005)

Josh,

Yep, I'd agree John 6 was biggest hammer for me. My first "greeny" shock when I learned of election and all its implications regarding free will was the reaction against it. I was honestly innocently shocked. I was pretty green that it was a lightening rod and at that point didn't know much about the church in general. I use to think, what's so hard to believe about it the total depravity of man, I've seen my inward heart thinking - seems quite reasonable to me...get over yourself. Early on for myself outward sins bothered me much less than what I felt and knew my heart was churning out that no one else could see. So, that helped a lot.

Plus, the whole idea, and the was early on, of God looking down the very cooridoors of time to see faith seemed a bit contradictory to me.

The definitive atheist Fredrick N. even saw it in Romans 9 and he thought it repugnant. I found that fascinating, that a raw atheist could clearly read that passage and see it, in terms of the clear language - yet many Christians deny it and bend the words to the point of unrecognizability.

Benjamin Franklin once set out to be more humble. To do this he decided to track his progress. After a couple of weeks of practicing humility he observed his good track record, then something occurred to him. The more humility he practiced the more prideful with his progress he got. He never could get past it. Yet, another proof of total depravity and all being tainted by sin.

Larry


----------



## Me Died Blue (Jan 27, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Larry Hughes_
> The definitive atheist Fredrick N. even saw it in Romans 9 and he thought it repugnant. I found that fascinating, that a raw atheist could clearly read that passage and see it, in terms of the clear language - yet many Christians deny it and bend the words to the point of unrecognizability.



Actually, with the doctrine of election, that actually makes sense to me, and I see and hear of it often as well: The text is so plain and clear on what it is saying about God's absolute sovereign election of some to light and others to darkness, that it seems nearly everyone who reads it must *know* to one degree or another what it's really saying, since it could hardly be more blunt...the thing is, of course atheists aren't afraid to admit that that _really is_ what Romans 9 claims, because admitting that doesn't make a difference in their view on election...but a Bible-believing Christian who's not ready to let go of his or her comfortable autonomy has a lot more at stake in admitting the plain meaning of that text, since for them that would mean they actually have to embrace it! So they try to do anything they can to explain it away to themselves and others, covering up the obvious true meaning because of what they know it would force them to believe, unlike the unregenerate heathen who couldn't care less what the Bible claims about election.


----------



## turmeric (Jan 31, 2005)

Because of the way in which I was converted I had no trouble with Total Depravity or irresistible Grace, Limited Atonement was hard because it went against everything I had been taught, but The Death of Death in The Death of Christ by John Owen helped me understand it. Still don't understand, though I believe, Unconditional Election. i know there's nothing good in us, but I'm sure God isn't just being random.


----------



## a mere housewife (Jan 31, 2005)

My dad taught us reformed theology every evening when we were little: I didn't struggle too seriously with any of it, though I did sometimes wonder why God would choose some people and not others-- wasn't that unfair? When I was a teenager I still didn't doubt any of it, I just didn't like the idea that God was infringing on my rights: what an egotistical God. I (the non-egotist, of course) was going to abuse whatever freedom I had in protest, and I decided "Not God-- not that kind of God." But God decided, "Yes, you," and I came running. I've never had any problems with any of it since-- I have no right to have any problem with it.


----------



## BlackCalvinist (Jan 31, 2005)

The L.

Arthur Custance's book 'The Sovereignty of Grace' and James White's 'The Potters' Freedom' nailed it for me. Custance's book (chapter 8) is the best treatment of LA I've seen to date (I do still have other books to read, though.....).

Custance's book is online at www.custance.org, by the way.

Over time, I've come to 'grow stronger' on the L. Once you realize WHAT the atonement is and WHO the entire process of redemption was intended for, it's kinda hard not to hold the L. Otherwise, you end up with a God who punishes sins twice - once in Christ and twice in the unbeliever.


----------



## Ianterrell (Jan 31, 2005)

So true Kerry. That's why the doctrine is so clear.


----------



## Augusta (Jan 31, 2005)

> _But God decided, "Yes, you," and I came running. I've never had any problems with any of it since-- I have no right to have any problem with it. _


_

Heidi this is what I have told myself when I start to get namby pamby about election. I know that I should love God's decrees because they are perfectly righteous and perfectly just._


----------



## BlackCalvinist (Jan 31, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Ianterrell_
> So true Kerry. That's why the doctrine is so clear.



The other biggie on the 'L' for me is that it is _intimately_ linked to the other four points - the blessings and benefits bestowed upon the believer via relationship with Christ are directly benefits of the atonement. So those who are elect are predestined to be conformed to the image of the Son (Rom. 8:29-30) - these are the ones He redeemed. If you apply universal redemption to that, you have EVERYONE being predestined to be conformed to the image of the Son.... which is ludicrous .............
(not to be confused with Ludacris , who dislikes Bill O'Reilly)

[Edited on 1-2-2005 by OS_X]


----------



## bigheavyq (Feb 1, 2005)

mine is election. once you agree with that everything else fits into place. My wife agrees with the first four but has a hard time with the P.


----------

