Saturday, May 26, 2007

Hard Core Predestination and 5 Point Calvinism

I will begin this post by stating clearly and honestly that this overall issue has been alive and well much longer than any I have addressed in my earlier doctrinal posts and deserves much more careful study than I have given it. I primarily have endeavored to gain a basic understanding of the issues that are controversial and determine where I stand, but there is a lifetime of information to be learned about our Protestant heritage, as well as our overall church history. I am trying to continue to learn and be informed and led by the Spirit. It is in the area of study that I genuinely believe we could all learn a lot from our Calvinistic brothers.

The term 5 point Calvinism is a misleading one. It is my understanding that the history of that term comes from the debate that occurred about 5 key doctrines between Arminians and defenders of Calvin's doctrine in 1618.

"Early in the seventeenth century the Presbyterian Church of Holland, whose doctrinal confession is the same in substance with ours, was much troubled by a species of new-school minority, headed by one of its preachers and professors, James Harmensen, in Latin, Arminius (hence, ever since, Arminians). Church and state have always been united in Holland; hence the civil government took up the quarrel. Professor Harmensen (Arminius) and his party were required to appear before the States General (what we would call Federal Congress) and say what their objections were against the doctrines of their own church, which they had freely promised in their ordination vows to teach. Arminius handed in a writing in which he named five points of doctrine concerning which he and his friends either differed or doubted. These points were virtually: Original sin, unconditional predestination, invincible grace in conversion, particular redemption, and perseverance of saints."


Total depravity (Original Sin)
Unconditional election (God's Election)
Limited atonement (Particular Redemption)
Irresistible grace (Effectual Calling)
Perseverance of the Saints

The word TULIP is often used to communicate these doctrinal issues that were controversial. I will make this short and sweet cause Lord knows my posts have been crazy long lately. (U) I do not believe God has a previously determined list of people that will be saved. (L) I do not believe that Jesus died to save this list of people only. (I) I do not believe that God's grace is something that overwhelms you to the point that you have no choice but to cooperate with it once living by it. (P)I do not believe there is a guarantee that if you choose to live by His grace that you MUST necessarily go on doing so indefinitely. (T)Finally, I saved the T for last because I think everything may hinge upon it. While I do believe that God certainly receives all glory for my or anyone else's salvation, I also believe that my PARTICIPATION is a key ingredient to actualizing God's grace in my life. No participation equals no grace. I will also acknowledge that how this works itself out in practice is a bit of a mystery, but how many other things about salvation can we say that about. Almost all of it in some way or another is mysterious. Participation is NOT works or merit, and to remove participation from salvation seems to me to be teaching something that the overall message of Scripture contradicts.

This is obviously another area in which I believe there are fundamental issues at stake. I'll leave bouncing large numbers of Scripture quotage to any one on one discussion that may arise from this post, but I'll throw a few out there for good measure. First, not A passage, but word usage from many different passages to make a point. "whoever believes..."-John 3:16, "not wanting anyone to perish..."-II Peter 3:9, "...so that by the grace of God he might taste death for everyone."-Hebrews 2:9 This is just a smattering of examples that seems to point to the nature of God's salvation being AVAILABLE to everyone, anyone, and whoever.

"Repent and believe the good news!" Mark 1:15
"When the people heard this, they were cut to the heart and said to Peter and the other apostles, 'Brothers, what shall we do?' Peter replied, 'Repent and be baptized, everyone of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins.'" Acts 2:37&38
Repentance is inherently a willful act. (participation)

Finally, a verse I found interesting that I will present without comment.
"All the people, even the tax collectors, when they heard Jesus' words, acknowledged that God's way was right, because they had been baptized by John. But the Pharisees and experts in the law rejected God's purpose for themselves, because they had not been baptized by John."--Luke 7:29&30

FINALLY...... the end of the doctrinal discussion has come. I'll be back to my normal mode of blathering next week. :)

Disclaimer
If you strongly disagree with me about this or any other of my posts about doctrine, please take the time to read my “Why I am writing about doctrine” post from April 14 before you respond. Thank You.

3 comments:

T. Basselin said...

I'm not writing to argue with you, but to perhaps provide slight perspective - or at least an extremely succinct reasoning for the Reformed view.

For a Reformed person, what is at stake is God's sovereignty. Calvinists took Luther's suggestion that we are saved by "grace alone" very seriously. This was obviously a reaction against the Catholic church's combination of works and grace (e.g. indulgences). Thinking from that perspective ---

T ------ If it is by GRACE ALONE, then there is nothing I can do that will help me move toward salvation. I am, then, totally depraved.

U ------ All the other point follow from this same reasoning. If God is fully sovereign and in control, and if we are saved by grace alone, then God has obviously elected those whom God has chosen.

L ----- Christ, however, did not die in vain. This would suggest some weakness in God, that God would punish Jesus for the sin of someone that would never accept Christ. Therefore, Christ only died for those who were chosen.

I --- If God is in full control and there's nothing I can do to earn salvation (grace alone!), then what God chooses will necessarily be accomplished. I will not be able to resist it.

P ----- If I cannot earn my salvation, neither can I be responsible for persevering in it. Only God can keep me safe.

Put even more succinctly:
It's all God's power, none of my own.

Dennis D. said...

First, as always, I really appreciate you taking the time to not only read but give a response. I wouldn't have minded if you were arguing. I still would have been appreciative of the input. I agree with you that anyone studying this needs to give the historical context consideration when thinking of it. Specifically that Calvinists were forming and forging their beliefs in a time when there was a distinct and needed pendulum swing away from the direction that the Catholic doctrine had gone. However, surely Arminius(not claiming to have read him and certainly not necessarily defending him totally either) would have been even more aware of this perspective than we could ever be. He seems to simply be pointing out the direction that some of Calvin and Luther's doctrines could take Protestants, which I believe it has. Essentially, I don't believe it is necessarily an assault on God's sovereignty to deny the TULIP points. The key is what does "grace alone" mean?

Not to argue for some rigid dogma that is 180 degrees from Calvin, but simply to point out that it is God's sovereignty specifically that I believe is responsible for choosing to give us some degree of choice. How that works itself out in the grand cosmic big picture is admittedly mind boggling, but so are many other of the mysteries I find in Scripture. The point, however, is that just because we do not understand how God can give us choice and yet truly hang on to His sovereignty is irrelevant. It is what I believe best coincides with the revelation given to us. Another point is that the more I've learned about church history the more clear it seems to me that the pendulum always swings well past where it should when trying to correct a wrong extreme on the other side. Anyhoo, I seriously doubt we will resolve this one anytime soon, but I thought I would throw in my two cents into the mix and further try to stimulate discussions like this one. Give Quinn a hug from us. Later gator.

T. Basselin said...

I fully agree with you.

I just thought the other side needed to be stated.

There is good rational to their points. I don't fully agree with the rationale, but the rationale itself is quite solid.