I have, over the last year, been contemplating the "five points " of Calvinism, known by the acronym "TULIP". While I am sure the main contributors here are familiar with this terminology, some of our other readers may want some explanation.
TULIP stands for:
The purpose of this is to explore Calvinism, as I am not, at this point, a Calvinist. So, these are just my crude, brief explanations.T - Total Depravity - In his natural state, apart from the work of God in his life, man is totally depraved and sinful in that anything he does, whether devious or philanthropic, is for his glory and not God's and is, therefore, sinful. Because of this, man, in his natural state, is completely unable to trust Christ as the entire bend of his soul is for his own glorification and, therefore, must have his own nature intervened upon by an extrinsic agent in order to create in him the conditions necessary for placing his faith in Christ.
U - Unconditional Election - The election of the saints (those who are to be saved) is based upon no merit or condition met by the individual.
L - Limited Atonement - Christ's work of atonement is only for the elect. Meaning that, though His desire is for all to be saved, the atoning work of His death and
resurrection will only be effectual for those who are of the elect because it can only be effected in those who will actually convert.
I - Irresistible Grace - God's grace is
irresistible. Not that the work of God's grace cannot be resisted, but the Holy Spirit has the power to overcome resistance and make grace
irresistible. The work of
Irresistible Grace is necessary for man's salvation as he is totally depraved and
unable to prepare and secure it for himself.
P - Perseverance of the Saints - God's grace will be effected in the life of the believer, and will work to preserve his Salvation, though perhaps not all at once.
Saying that I've been contemplating Calvinism implies that I am not of the Calvinist persuasion, and I am not. My upbringing in the church springs from a more
Arminian view of the process of Salvation, and I have always been taught to think in these terms, but over the past two years, as some of you well know, I've developed (or should I say Grace has developed in me) a drive to not only affirm what I believe about God but to also discover the basis (or lack thereof) for my personal theology. After all, one cannot truly love God if one does not truly know the God he desires to love. So in keeping with the process of spiritual growth, my attempt to address my often errant desires has led me to a need to address my thinking about them and how they affect my relationship with God...Hence, a need to address my beliefs about Salvation.
At this point, I realized that, like many Christians, I have always tossed views not in keeping with my inherited theological structure and consequently began to rethink my personal
soteriology. Eventually, I found myself pouring over numerous written and spoken works that shed light and revelation on what it means to be a Christian that I never previously had and greatly needed. To my surprise, a stark majority of their authors/speakers are/were Calvinists. So this sparked this question in me:
If all these people have such an incredible understanding of what it means to be truly converted, can I just dismiss what they would say about the process of conversion itself?
The answer for me is...no.
So, I've been contemplating Calvinism and am at an impasse which begins and ends at "Total Depravity".
I find it easy to dismiss the other four points, but in my attempts to dismiss the Calvinist view of Salvation altogether, I have found "Total Depravity" (T.D.) not so dismissive. The idea that man, in and of himself, cannot begin or complete the process of conversion as a limitation of his fallen nature to me is more accurate a description of fallen man than I have found elsewhere. I have tossed and wrestled and mulled this idea for quite a while now and cannot divest myself of what is says about me. I would say that it is inarguable that the things of God are foreign to us in our natural state. The Gospel is as foolishness to all of us. I would also have to say that my acceptance of the Gospel cannot be the work of my own understanding as everything I inherently pursue places as its standard my gratification. I believe that original sin is, and we are born as enemies of God. Not to say that I believe that God views every one born as His enemy, but rather that we are born of a nature hostile to God and to truth.
So, I find myself accepting this understanding of man's condition, but the problem lies in its application because though, at the outset, I can dismiss the other four points, the acceptance of this point demands the acceptance of the rest. I am forced, in light of the conclusion/impasse that I have come to, to:
1. If man is totally depraved, then the work of his Salvation must be the result of an extrinsic agent at work against his nature...i.e.
Irresistible Grace.
2. If God's grace is responsible for my initial act of faith, then the work of grace is a work done of God and not of man. If this is the case, given that some are saved and some are not, then the atoning work of Christ must, in the final analysis, only be effectual in a limited sense as only a limited number are subject to the grace which leads to faith...i.e. Limited Atonement
3. If Christ's work of atonement is effectually limited to only those whom grace prevails upon and saving grace is a work of God and not of man, then the idea of the "elect" is valid and cannot be based on any merit of man as it is a work of God...i.e. Unconditional election.
4. If my choosing Christ is not possible in and of myself, and I must have the work of God's grace to draw me unto Salvation, then the perseverance of my desire for God must be the work of Grace and therefore left to God to perfect.
So, my
problem is not with T.D., yet it is T.D.. I cannot dismiss this principle as it seems a truer assessment of man's condition than anything else. However, if I accept it, then my dismissal of the other four points falls like dominoes.
I, of course, understand the implications in such as it relates to the function of free will in man which also is something of which I cannot let go. This is precisely my dilemma.
This is where I leave you all as this is where I am left.
Your thoughts would be greatly appreciated
cheers
Zeius