I want to pick up with Unconditional election since I didn't elaborate enough from last time.
Unconditional election for me also means that there is technically no human obligation for us to fulfill in order to receive salvation from God. Hence the term "saved by grace, not through works". Hence this is extremely important or else we cheapen grace. What is mercy without grace, what is salvation without grace? What is Jesus without Grace? It is through Jesus that we are 'elected'.
L = Limited Atonement
Why is atonement limited? As stated Jesus came to save all people, he died for all people. So how come there are still people that are forgiven in Hell and in Heaven? I still have more questions to ponder about this point:
Did Christ die for all the sins of some men?
Did Christ die for all the sins of all men?
Limited Atonement also concerns into the issue of Free-will, like the whole issue we had during the discussion of 1 Peter back in October.
I = Irresistible Grace
I think I associate myself closely to the general given definition of irresistible grace. The basic definition of this doctrine is that God is sovereign and can overcome all resistance when he wills. Specifically saying, this irresistible grace is already given, we can't really reject it. God has given it to us. So God supreme takes away our what resistance we have to denying his grace. It might sound like God is forcing people to believe, but in some way, I believe free will still exists in people selecting God or not.
P = Perseverance of the saints
Once saved, always saved. I should make a correction to that. Once correctly saved (meaning they placed their faith in Jesus correctly) they would not fall away. I'm actually quite hesitant about this point, although 2 months ago I would affirm it so convincingly. Questions like: Who justify as being correct and believing in the right things?
I seriously have a disliking of doctrine. For one, it takes the best news ever of the gospel and add so much baggage to it. TULIP in this example just highlighted somethings I am questioning, yet some parts I do continue to affirm because they seem appropriate.
I was talking to my dad the other day about some of these points, and to the core he said ," You're just questioning the love of God and how come there seems to say that it is impossible to have a loving God and a just God." I agreed. He pointed out, "look at our relationship, as father and son, we are just like that to God, children. He loves us as our parent, he disciplines like our parent, yet his love doesn't change. However, God himself as a father would also give people who refuse him their choice as well.
Is really hard to describe that kind of relationship with our languages. I think that's why is hard to put into words and hence we get these wordy doctrines. God's relationship with us is described as a Groom to his bride, as a father to his children. I mean, go to your parents, and ask them why they love you. I don't think they could explain it themselves above the point that "you are my child". Or how about one day turning to your spouse asking, "why do you love me?", hopefully they won't just say because "you're beautiful", or "smart", or "you're nice"but because true love is really indescribable. (this is pretty awkward coming from a family studies guy).
To be honest, I have no desire to understand all this doctrine. I believe I've been called to love God and love my neighbour, to simply demonstrate and then to testify.
Sweet, I'm done with the TULIP thing...
Oh and please welcome Sarah to our blog!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment