John Calvin and TULIP
My friend, Billy Kangas asked me on his blog about TULIP, aka the 5 points of Calvinism. You can check out more of his stuff on his “Orant” facebook page. I wrote this in response to his question:
I pretty much agree with your take on this Billy, at least what I have read so far. I think the church in many ways has moved away from relying on scripture, and tends to rely on talking points, and doctrine. While I do not have a theological degree, I have read many theologians, and been involved in the church all my life. Personally, I go back to scripture. Of course with the specific goal of deepening my relationship with the Father, Christ, the Holy Spirit of God, and through that, man. In the past I debated various aspects of theology much more fervently than I currently do. While useful in specified contexts, some people simply can’t argue without taking it personally. I refer to no one here, as I think everyone here can handle that. I have little use for arguments that aren’t directly relied to scripture, when scripture is being discussed. I’m not saying I need chapter and verse, and I am definitely not accusing any one here of that. I simply have heard way too many sermons that have little to no basis in scripture, or cite a few verses out of context. I know quite a few pastors that have taken huge falls from grace. Homosexual extramarital affairs, heterosexual extramarital affairs, drug addiction, pedophilia, etc. Personally knowing these pastors has jaded me slightly. I am not impressed by degrees and titles when it comes to spirituality, although I think degrees and titles are useful. To return to the topic at hand, I have read much of Calvin, although it was a few years back. My thoughts:
T: Yes, as long as we are simply saying that man is unable to achieve sanctification on his own merit. I do not believe that man is incapable of agape apart from God. Well technically, no one is apart from God ever, he is the force that binds the atoms, even in the depth of hell, he is there.
U: Undecided. I could argue for yes, and no. I tend toward yes, but the fact he chose Jacob over Esau seems based on character, of course God molded each person.
L: Calvinists do not believe, however, that the atonement is limited in its value or power (in other words, God could have elected everyone and used it to atone for them all), but rather that the atonement is limited in the sense that it is designed for some and not all. Quote from the Wikipedia entry. I agree with this statement.
I: No. I believe that pain and sin are a result of free will. Both Lucifer’s original decision, and our subsequent decisions as a race. I believe free will is indeed free. I do however believe an all powerful God could manipulate circumstances to nearly guarantee a specific decision, if he so chose. I think of a child knowing putting their hand on a hot stove. Once someone is thoroughly educated about burns, few would willingly and freely burn themselves again. God can choose to display as much of his goodness to a specif individual as he chooses to. The more that is revealed, the more difficult it is to reject him.
P: No. Hebrews does not seem to support universal perseverance. Neither does Matthew, although in Mathew it could be easily argued that the seeds, and the goats never knew him. I think that Perseverance of the Saints is a nice, comfortable doctrine, but I do not believe it to be true. Regardless, historically, when faced with a reprobate, living in sin, the response from both the Calvinistic camp, and the Armenian has been the same. The person is not saved. Either they were never saved, or have lost their salvation. Most believe that both of these scenarios can be redeemed; the salvation of someone’s soul, and submission to God is my only concern in the matter.
