Since I addressed the T in TULIP in greater detail in my previous post, I will begin with the U of Unconditional election. While each point of TULIP as addressed by Lemke could (and probably should) be addressed in separate posts, I will am pursuing brevity for the benefit of the reader and should in no wise be taken as a concession for Lemke’s errors.
Unconditional Election
On Unconditional Election, Lemke writes:
“Many Calvinists understand ‘unconditional election’ to mean that salvation is provided by God without any involvement or free choice on the party of the sinner, counting any human response (even assent) as a work.”
Absolutely false. Who are the “many Calvinists” Lemke is referring to who contend that unconditional election removes human responsibility? Perhaps he is referring to hyper-Calvinists who reject “duty faith.” Maybe by “free choice of the party of the sinner” he is allowing only for libertarian free will which we find later in his article he advocates. If that is the case, then yes, Calvinists do not allow for this kind of free will. This is because the Bible does not allow for libertarian free will (if you will notice in his paper, there are no Scriptural proofs for his arguments). LFW cannot function with unconditional election, predestination, and divine foreknowledge, and the “power of contrary choice” ultimately makes the human decision the terminal cause in a most arbitrary sense.
Recent Comments