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
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Again with the paradoxes! This is a great question you're exploring, Dr. Z, one I've never had the courage to fully explore myself. It does seem that, at least deductively, all the other points logically follow, if Calvin's (and, for that matter, Augustine's) principle of total depravity is true. I would be interested to learn how Calvin formulated his theology, whether by pure deductive reasoning, or by finding evidence for all "five points" independently in scripture, or by direct revelation, or otherwise (I can't say whether a combination of the aforementioned is possible). I usually would say that I hold with the doctrine of total deparavity, but that only in a very lazy and perhaps cowardly way, as I would then tend to object to some of the others. As you've pointed out, this seems impossible: either total depravity is true and the rest follow, or it is not. I've always favored some allowance for free will, but, as even our "free will" seems corrupt, it is difficult to find any reconciliation with that and the irresistible nature of God's grace. As Ned Flanders might say, it's "a dilly of a pickle." I always was, and still am, confused by the actual meaning of Jesus' parable of the sower, as it pertains to the types of soil where the Word either grows or dies. If you've done some study on this one, please enlighten me. I'll do some more thinking on the matter, and hopefully we can get some good dialogue on this most central of theological doctrines.
Dr. Z.,
Calvin is correct about certain aspects of humankind's nature. Humankind is totally deprived. However, through the virtue of baptism, the individual is cleared of this depravity, i.e. original sin. Calvin would not consider this and thus must conclude his next point, unconditional election.
When one considers the nature of God as eternal one must come to grips with the fact that in order to be eternal he MUST exist outside of natural time/space constructs. In this realm outside the existence of time/space, all things are before Him: beginnings and endings, creation and re-creation, salvation or damnation etc. Therefore, time not being an issue--negating the "pre" in destination--Calvin's point is void.
The concept of Limited Atonement is cancelled by the lack of an "elect" populace
Irresistable grace seems necessary to counter arguements against the former aspects of TULIP and is contradictory to the general nature of the Holy Spirit's character visible in Scripture. Not a spiritual conqueror, but the paraclete, the comforter.
Perserverance neglects the fact that there are outpourings of grace throughout the believer's life. Instead Calvin is fixated on the salvation phenomenon. As I have said before, I believe Christian phenomenology to be dangerous and somewhat akin to certain aspects of gnosticism.
To sum up, when I consider Calvin's theology I am confronted with an image of a vacuous chasm.
thoughts:
1. overall, i tend to agree, mainly, with V.I. here(time/space constructs). testud is right in saying that deductively the formula works. i just have a difficult time trying to ascribe a format, or system, to something as esoteric and elusive as faith.
2. in addition, i hesitate to fully accept calvin's explanation because of temporal ramifications. meaning, for 'depraved man' to cloak himself in the language of the 'predetermined select', it gives a sense of temporal, and spiritual primacy. does it really matter if faith is predestined? i would say no, unless one is trying to give agency and authority to one group over another...which is what calvin was doing...spiritually and politically. if my faith is predestined, so be it. if i believe solely because i've chosen the gift of faith over disbelief, so be it. for me, the only result in a calvinist structure is a sense of authority...and this is dangerous....inside non-heretical dialogue.
3. everything i've said is an attempt to explain my ideas about something that am very reluctant to personally explore. is it personal cowardice like testud admits to...maybe. i don't know. i'm still trying to embrace true faith, as it is...i couldn't care less as to its origins, and i leave that for others who are better suited to fully explore this spiritual/philosophical minefield.
Testud.
Yes, the parable of the sower is extremely relevant, I think, to the issue of free will and how it does or does not work in one’s Salvation. Specifically, in each description of the soil, save the “good soil”, there are elements at work to prevent the development of the seed namely the thorns for the one soil and the lack of “root-room” for the other. Either of these could be interpreted in light of Calvin or Arminus’ view of the Salvation process. Whereas the thorns seem to imply the presence of external agents influencing the eventual development of the seed (i.e. adherence to Christ), the “shallow-root” condition seems to indicate that development (i.e. adherence) is determined by the internal ability of the soil itself to respond to the sower’s seed…Very confusing, indeed.
I also wonder what processes of the mind led Calvin to develop these views. Of course, there are Scriptures to support his views, but one could use scripture to support almost anything short of hardcore heresy.
I am glad, however, that I am not the only one that sees the legitimacy and benefit in asking these questions.
V.I.
I must say that none one of this intended to offend or incite as it may seem argumentative. Know this is not my desire, but our perspectives differ so greatly in some areas that my sounding otherwise would be a bit dishonest.
1. Depravity addressed at Baptism – Even if one is to accept this view of Baptism, Calvin would ask “If man is totally deprived, what was at work in him to lead him to the consciousness of his condition and the revelation of his need to be baptized?”. Also, if baptism clears man of his deprived nature (i.e. original sin or the inherent tendency to sin), why would the Apostles, namely Peter and Paul, have spent so much time addressing the issues of sin in the early church. In actuality, if this were the case, their letters that now comprise our New Testament were addressing converts which would have not only been baptized but by the fountainheads of Apostolic succession themselves and were yet still given to sin. I guess maybe I’m misunderstanding, but it seems to me that if the soul’s re-genesis were completed at baptism, there would be no need for further exhortation or instruction in the church as to Christly living only the command to be baptized (which I do completely agree is a command to be adhered to and does carry with it a spiritual impartation of grace and I do realize that this a debate that Protestants and Catholics have been engaged in for a very long time).
2. God outside of time – To argue that because God exists outside of time (I do believe He does) the idea of predestination, as it is a time-subjective term, is invalid is, to me, not a very developed thought because its application to Salvation issues is based on the notion that time exists outside of God as if it were some objective measure. Regardless of one’s soteriological persuasion, all Christians acknowledge that our soul’s fate is determined by whether or not we are reconciled to God from our inherent state of enmity toward Him. Well, if this is the case, the occurrence of our salvation, however that happens, is something that IS subjected to time. One might argue that because God is outside of time and all things “are before Him” at once, the fate of one’s soul is not something that He sees as a series of happenings as we do but rather as one picture. In my opinion, this falls for a number of reasons not the least of which would be Paul’s doctrine of position (see Romans 3-5). He makes it very clear that we are born “in Adam” and are saved “in Christ”. This idea of two contrasting, off-setting positions, though maybe absent from God’s perspective as outside of time, are very much a part of His consideration of man as man is subject to the constraints of time. As I see it, the “pre” part of predestination is not negated by God’s absence of time, but required by our presence in time so that we may understand our condition and respond to God in kind. Once again though, let me be very clear, I am not arguing to support the doctrine of predestination, but rather to explore it.
3. Irresistible Grace and the Holy Spirit – The Holy Spirit is described four times in the New Testament by a translation of the Greek word “parakletos”, and in all of these instances, it’s used, in context, to impart a picture of the Holy Spirit’s function in the life of the believer. You are correct that it is translated to the term “comforter” in most classic translations (i.e. KJV type translations). The problem I have with the application of this picture of this function of the Holy Spirit, that of comforting, is that though the Holy Spirit does serve to comfort, this is not the literal translation of the word “parakletos”. The direct translation of “parakletos” is “called to one’s aid” which is why, in most modern, literal translations the word is translated as “helper”. This being the case, I would say this affirms the notion of the Holy Spirit aiding and working in the believer to bring him to a saving faith perhaps not in an irresistible manner, but, then again, if I were settled on these issues, I wouldn’t have posted on this to start with.
4. Perseverance and outpourings of grace – I think you might misunderstand, or perhaps I do, but every writer/speaker I have encountered on the doctrine of perseverance makes the case that, throughout the life of the believer, God preserves him through outpourings of grace in his life. I am unsure of what you mean by Christian phenomenology…Please explain.
I really hope I don’t seem too presumptuous with my views as I do truly love absorbing differing perspectives of the faith. So, please don’t take this as me dismissing your paradigm, but as I said, it would be dishonest for me not to disagree.
Herodotus –
I think you bring a very good point up in that, whether Salvation is predetermined is not the most central question because whether one has true faith or not is more important than whether it was predetermined that he would.
As for the idea of primacy, I don’t connect here. The idea of an elect body is not to grant primacy of one over the other as the very doctrine itself is founded on the idea that election is of no merit on part of the elect. I understand the political implications in the timing of Calvin’s expressing these ideas, but I think it presumptuous to assume his motives here especially considering that anything having to do with the church carried political implications at the time. Still though, not an invalid point.
Part of the reason I posted on Calvin’s salvation doctrine is that, as you and turtle have both said, most people find ways to quickly dismiss his ideas as they are uncomfortable and carry implications antithetical to how we all (you, turtle, v.i., and myself) tend to view Salvation.
cheers.
Post a Comment