I think most fundamental Christians will agree that the most
contentious (Ching Eng, correct me if i am wrong) points about
TULIP is:
1) Unconditional election/predestination
2) Limited atonement
Its not so much about "Once saved always saved". I will not touch
on predestination because it will take another thread, so i will
briefly share my views about Limited Atonement. Note that i am
coming from a presbyterian point of view.
I believe that Christs atonement was sufficient for all, but
efficient only for the elect. Here is where we derive the common
statement "Sufficient for all, Effective for the Elect". It is
correct to say that Christ died to save only the elect, when the
context is the design and intention of the atonement, and not its
sufficiency. That is quite a mouthful, so try to digest
slowly.
If you need scripture verses, here you go:
Matthew 1:21 says, "...for He shall save His people from their
sins." The term his people here refers to the elect.
Ephesians 5:25 "...even as Christ also loved the church, and gave
himself for it." Again the term church demarcates a group of
people, not the whole world.
There is actually 3 views in Christian world,
1) Calvanistic - Upholds TULIP and most fundamental church
2) Non-Calvanistic - I can safely say all charismatic and armeinian
churches
3) Hyper-Calvanistic - they base their faith on TULIP, quite a
dangerous group
So thats about it for now. hope these gave you a better
picture.
