I've discussed TULIP before in a post, but never really got around to finishing my thought. I can't remember what I said there, and I don't necessarily stand by it. This is one of those doctrines that Christian teenagers discuss and then when it's been argued enough, they figure there are bigger theological fish to fry. But it never hurts to reevaluate where one stands.
I would have to say that I am a two and a half point type at this point. Here's my quick thoughts on each.
Total Depravity - I am absolutely 100% convinced of the utter degeneracy, corruption, and disgrace of not only the situation we all find ourselves in, but of our very selves, myself and those around me. We are hopelessly corrupt. I did not need the Bible to tell me this, but in case Biblical support is desired, that's simple enough to establish.
Unconditional Election - Two examples should suffice. The first is Israel. Abraham in particular, was chosen by God through no virtue of his own. God could have chosen anyone. Maybe he did, maybe he didn't. But I'm sure that he chose Abraham at the very least. This choice is confirmed throughout the Old Testament and confirmed, and not denied by the New. The second example is Paul. The man was knocked off a fucking horse by God! Dude, sorry, you are chosen. This is not to say that either Moses or Paul had no choice but to accept, and it's not to say that had a choice. That's a question for later in the acronym. But it's undeniable that he chose them to fulfill his purposes. He loved them before they loved him.
Limited Atonement - This is where I veer into "half" territory. Suffice it to say I'm not original here. I'm with what I've read is the position of Thomas Aquinas as influenced by Peter Lombard. The atonement of Christ is sufficient for all, but only [effective] for some. My understanding of the extreme Calvinist position (even though I've also heard that Calvin himself was somewhat ambiguous on this point) is that Christ only actually died for the elect. If I'm misinterpreting the Calvinist position, then someone needs to correct the legions of Calvinists who I've heard that from because the misrepresentation, if there is indeed one, didn't start with me. Speaking of ambiguity. I think that Scripture's own ambiguity on this point is what leads me to this point.
Regarding this point, in particular, what led me to post on this topic was a series of short posts by Michael Bird where he had three posts where he asked three representatives to answer the question, "For whom did Christ die?" The presenters were Paul Helm for the Calvinist view, Ben Witherington for the Arminian view, and Michael Jensen for the Amyraldian view. [Side note: I've never heard the term Amyraldian in my life. Is that new?] Jensen view strikes me as best. Thus my half position rather than all or nothing results from the Bible's own ambiguity.
Irresistable Grace - The Old Testament is the history of God's chosen people resisisting grace, a resistance for which they are summarily punished. They knew God, through the law, and yet denied him. God revealed himself through the prophets, and yet they denied him. The Parable of the Wicked Tenants is a narrative version of Hebrews 1:1-2. And yet, they (proximately, the first century Jewish inhabitants of Jerusalem, but not excluding us as well) refused to acknowledge him. They/we will be summarily punished.
Perseverance of the Saints - It's impossible for me to read much of Paul before declaring this position untenable. Most defenders of this point posit that there is some kind of "truly" saved people which will not fall away, and if anyone does, it can't prove the opponents point, it only shows that they were never "truly" saved. How convenient! Again, Paul is very serious about warning (and I'm not talking about the book of Hebrews, I'm talking about Paul) his followers to perservere. Those who do persevere in the end will be shown to be the true saints. But there is persevering that needs to be done. You don't hear coming from Paul's pen the kind of comfort you hear these days from "Once saved always saved" style preachers. It's so easy! Not for Paul it's not.
So you see there are two that I'm strongly for, two that I'm strongly against, and one of which I have a nuanced middle view. Thus I can be considered to hold to two and half points of the theory. Here I stand... for now at least. Label me as you will!
7 comments:
Just a side note - Amyraldianism, and its various spellings, has been around for a while. It was one of the first significant variations of Reformed theology in the late 16th c. and caused a bit of a stink at the time.
Wikipedia article is a helpful overview:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amyraldism
Thanks for the tip. From my quick read, it seems closer to Calvinism than Arminianism. I guess I'm less Calvinist than Amyraut was and I really just like that particular blogger's highlighting of the Bible's unresolved tension.
ON LIMITED ATONEMENT (OR DEFINITE ATONEMENT)
Yes, Christ died only for the elect, those whom the Father has given Him. If Christ died for all men, indiscriminately, then all would be saved. But we know that is not the case. His blood was not spilt at the cross to make salvation possible for all men, but shed for the elect, to secure their salvation. It was not wasted, but actually saves those for whom it was intended. That is, He gave His life a ransom for "the many". It was the price He paid for the actual sins of His chosen people. At the Cross, the weight of the Father's wrath towards Christ was equal to the weight due to the actual sins of all the elect. And this wrath fell upon Jesus. We were bought "at a price" and this denotes it was weighed on the scales of justice to determine that price. Now if Christ died for all men without distinction, then His blood was wasted in the case of a Judas Iscariot, or an Esau, whom God declared that He hated.
But Isaiah says...
"He shall see the labor of His soul, and be satisfied." - Isaiah 53:11
Like a woman in birth pangs, He suffered to see His seed delivered. Now, if a woman is in labor and brings forth a stillborn child, and the nurse hands the child to his mother and says, "your child is dead", will that mother be satisfied? Christ would then have suffered in vain!
ON IRRESISTIBLE GRACE
The grace of God is indeed irresistible towards all the elect. The Jews who perished were under the law, seeking to be justified by keeping that law. Only those who actually received grace from God to understand the error of that way, given the gift of faith in the Son of God, by God's grace, were accepted by God and accounted righteous, even as believing Abraham. The Jews were given light, just as the wicked Gentiles were given light, except they were given more light, having the Scriptures and the ordinances, yet that is not the same thing as the grace of God. The grace of God is irresistible and invincible, and only such a saving power from God as this is able to truly comfort the soul of a believer who knows his own unworthiness.
ON THE PERSEVERANCE OF THE SAINTS
"For those whom He foreknew He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, in order that He might be the firstborn among many brothers. And those whom He predestined He also called, and those whom He called He also justified, and those whom He justified He also glorified." -Romans 8:29-30
From election to glory, God takes the initiative, since man is dead in trespasses and sins, until he is made alive in regeneration. And even after he is made alive, he carries about "the body of this death" as the Apostle Paul declared, which would soon cause him to stray if not for the grace of God working in him to sustain him. It is of grace, that it might be sure to all the seed. If it was of man's will, it is subject to the whims of that will and is therefore not sure. If salvation is of the will of man in any part, then Christ would be a failure when they who are justified then turned away. But no, it is all of grace, from beginning to end, that God may receive all the glory and all the praise, which is due to Him alone.
Steve,
On Irresistable Grace, I really don't think I'm out of the historic norm of the church, or of Paul's own thinking, in calling the whole people of Israel, the elect. They were all given grace, some resisted, and worshiped their own gods. There is no grace for unrepentant idolaters, only repentant ones. That is abundantly clear from the biblical narrative. Grace is resistable. It is shed on so many, and resisted by a large portion of that many.
Alex, I submit the following for your consideration...
"For sin will have no dominion over you, since you are not under law but under grace." -Rom 6:14 ESV
Paul here contrasts the covenant of law with the covenant of grace. Also observe the following...
"That is why it depends on faith, in order that the promise may rest on grace and be guaranteed to all his offspring—not only to the adherent of the law but also to the one who shares the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all" -Rom 4:16 ESV
Here Paul is saying that the promise is given to both the physical descendants of Abraham, the Jews who were believers in Christ(who were said to be of the law), as well as to the Gentiles, though not natural descendants of Abraham, yet are of the same faith with him, and so are Abraham's seed in a spiritual sense. So then both Jews and Gentiles, who are Christ's, are Abraham's spiritual seed, and heirs of eternal life, according to the free promise of grace.
Highlight this phrase, "that the promise may rest on grace and be guaranteed" in Rom 4:16. If it rests on man's will in any way whatsoever, it is not guaranteed. But it is by the grace of God, a free gift to the objects of His choosing, and received by faith, not by works of the law, which faith itself is a gift of God's grace, as Paul also says in Ephesians 2:8-9 ESV:
"For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast."
Post a Comment