Many Christians today follow the basic teachings of the early reformer, John Calvin, without knowing it or even fully understanding what “Calvinism” entails. John Calvin and Martin Luther were the principal theologians of the Reformation. The Lutheran denomination still exists today, although sometimes in forms far removed from their founding namesake. While there is no denomination identifying with the name Calvin, the Reformed, Presbyterian and many Baptist denominations follow Calvin’s teachings in large part, as do many “Bible” churches.
The remaining denominations and non-denominational groups
fall primarily into a contrasting theological camp loosely gathered under what
has come to be known as Armenians or semi-Pelagians. The names are drawn from
the 16th century debate between John Calvin and Jacobus Arminius
over the nature and degree of human fallenness. The two men picked up the
debate that originally raged in the 4th century between the eminent
theologian of the day, Augustine, and his detractor, Pelagius. Augustine and Calvin
held that humans were totally without power to seek God or find salvation
unless God intervened. Pelagius and Arminius believed that people had the
ability to find God using their own resources. The Methodists and a few other
denominations follow Arminius; the rest of orthodox Christians fall more or
less into the Calvinist camp.
The five basic tenets of Calvinism have long been summarized
as the TULIP doctrines, an acronym taken from the major tenets: total
depravity, unconditional election, limited atonement, irresistible grace and perseverance of
saints. There are those who consider themselves “five-point” Calvinists,
meaning they hold firmly to each of the TULIP principles. Others pick and
choose among the teaching of Calvin to construct their own brand. I will
briefly explain what these tenets have meant historically, and then present my
personal interpretation of each.
The “T” for total depravity has historically meant not that
humans are as bad as they can possibly be, but that they are fallen from grace
in every part of their being. To be totally depraved has been understood to
mean that there is nothing worthy of salvation within an unregenerate person.
The Arminian position holds that there is a glimmer of goodness in everyone,
and they have only to follow it to find God. That seems to be at odds with the
Scriptural position that, “there
is none righteous; not one.” Calvinists believe the declaration by God that
once Adam and Eve ate the forbidden fruit they would “surely die.” This did not
refer to physical death, obviously, but to spiritual death which means
separation from God. The Apostle Paul echoes this theme often referring to the
unregenerate state as being dead. One remains dead until God makes them alive,
according to Paul’s understanding. (Ephesians 2:1-6)
The “U” in the TULIP refers to unconditional election. The
topic of election is itself worthy of full treatment which I have done briefly
in “Election:
God’s Choice.” The Calvinist position flows naturally from the previous
discussion; if humans have nothing in them to recommend them to God, then
election to salvation must be without conditions. God does not require a person
to be good to save them; God saves people so they can become good. By contrast,
the Armenians believe that God chooses those who use their innate goodness to
seek Him. Again, I believe Scripture is clear: “There
is no one who seeks after God.”
An issue which overshadows the concept of election is the
sovereignty of God. The Calvinist concept of election is one aspect of God’s
sovereignty which rubs Armenians the wrong way due to their emphasis on human
free will. There is a sense in which the struggle to square the circle of God’s
sovereignty and human free will trails all the way back to the Garden of Eden.
Adam rebelled against the idea that God had a sovereign right to limit human
endeavor. The decision to disobey God’s command goes far beyond the simple
eating of forbidden fruit; it strikes at the heart of the relationship between
Creator and creature. This human willfulness which constitutes the “original
sin” continues to plague people throughout history making them selfish idol
worshippers seeking anything but a sovereign God who would trample their
independence. The Calvinist position is more likely to counter this aspect of human
depravity.
The “L” stands for limited atonement. The argument here is
primarily academic, in my opinion. The question is whether Jesus died for the
whole world or only for the elect. I say this is academic because His death is
only effective for the elect, so to debate whether it would be efficacious for
non-elect persons seems moot. I will say, however, that there are numerous
passages of Scripture that emphasize God’s love and concern is for the whole
world (John 3:16), and that the opportunity to believe and be saved is made
available to all.
This brings up another debated topic that is on the fringe
of the TULIP principles: does God elect people to salvation and to damnation, a
position known as double predestination. I prefer to think based on passages
like Romans
2:12-16 and 1
Peter 3:8-10 that the offer of salvation is universal, but the acceptance
of the offer is not. Again, we verge into a tangent discussing the difference
between God’s foreknowledge and His predestination. I am comfortable thinking
that if the Church does its duty to spread the gospel throughout the world, God
will be able to sort out the chosen from those not chosen.
The “I” stands for irresistible grace. The point here is
that if God uses His unconditional grace to elect someone to salvation, they
cannot do otherwise than to be saved. Here again, the Armenians differ in that
they believe people can not only resist initial grace unto salvation, but they
can fall from grace after having been saved. (More on this under perseverance.)
To me this principle falls under the mystery of election. If I follow the first
three tenets of the TULIP doctrine, my election by God has nothing to do with
my choice, so if God chooses to apply the atonement of Christ to me, I have no
say in the matter.
Jesus told Nicodemus that no one can see the Kingdom of God
unless they are born from above. (John
3:1-8) He said later that no one could come to Him unless the Father draws
him. (John
6:44) Paul told the Corinthians that the unregenerate person cannot begin
to grasp spiritual things because they are completely out of his reach. (1Corinthians
2:14) To me, this adds up to the necessity of grace working in the human
soul/spirit apart from human agency to accomplish salvation. The Bible is clear
that many will not be saved; hell won’t be populated only by the devil and his
angels. If I believe that God is not willing that any should perish (1 Peter 3 again), and
that He loved the whole world (John 3:16 again), either grace is resistible as
Paul seems to argue in Romans
1:18-23, or I am missing a point somewhere else.
The “P” stands for perseverance of saints. Quite simply this
means that once God has elected a person to salvation, they will ultimately be
saved. This principle has nothing to do with the details of what happens
between initial regeneration and final judgment. Some who hold to perseverance
have invented the term “backslidden” to describe apparent believers who cease
to live as believers. Others will say that people who appear to turn their back
on God after claiming to believe were never truly saved to begin with. The New
Testament has several dire warnings written to believers that appear to
indicate that they may fall away from belief and suffer eternal consequences.
As a realist and a student of the Scriptures, I tend to believe
that God’s chosen people will have less than perfect records of obedience.
While repentance and obedience are integral to saving faith, failures are
apparently not treated as ultimatums. Think of Moses, David, Peter and other
icons of the faith who failed miserably yet were lauded as God’s chosen. God
knows the weakness of His creatures (that
we are dust) and makes allowances stemming from His boundless grace.
This was not intended as an exhaustive treatment of Calvinism by any means. Calvin’s Institutes of the Christian Religion fills several volumes. My purpose was to lay out the basics and leave the deeper study to those who want more detail. I was raised in an Armenian denomination and “converted” to Calvinism in my twenties. The intervening forty-something years have only served to strengthen my feeling that I am more of a Calvinist that an Armenian. My parents are probably rolling over in their graves at that statement, but I trust when I see them again with the rest of the elect, we will have no arguments – one way or the other. The only tulips we will care about are the perfect flowers in the perfect garden.
No comments:
Post a Comment