TULIP: The Five Points of Calvinism.
I've never posted on a request before, but when a highly esteemed teacher of mine asked me to post my thoughts on Calvinism, I just couldn't refuse him. What Sifu wants, Sifu gets! This is for you, sir.
Okay, so I'd studied Calvinism back when I went to the Christian Academy I attended, but I'd long forgotten the premise of it, so had to do a little research. For those of you unfamiliar with Calvinism, check out the handy little site I looked up. http://www.mslick.com/tulip.htm From the moment I saw the word TULIP, my mind snapped back to essay questions I'd answered in high school. The acronym stands for:
Total Depravity
Unconditional Election
Limited Atonement
Irresistible Grace
Perseverance of the Saints
Let's break them down, and take on each point one at a time.
Total Depravity- I'd have to say that I agree on this one. But before you let that shock you, let me clarify. Total depravity sounds pretty harsh, like I'm saying we're all a bunch of psychos who skin people and eat babies or something. However this is far from what I mean, and what I believe the Calvinists are trying to get at. The point is that we are all sinners, and that not one individual (save Christ himself) lived or will live a sinless life. Some Catholics believe that the Blessed Mother never sinned, but, while I believe in the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, I don't believe that even our Holy Mother lived a completely sinless life. [Note: as pointed out by one of the comments, this is NOT a catholic teaching. Those who ascribe to such doctrine have misunderstood the official teaching of the Church.] So I guess I do buy into this one, though personally I think they should find a better name for this point. It just sounds mean.
Unconditional Election (also known as Predestination)- Moving on, we come to the second point, where my agreement with Calvinist doctrine comes to a screeching halt. The doctrine of unconditional election states that God has predestined some for salvation and others not. If you aren't one of the "elect" then there's nothing you can do to obtain salvation. Personally, I believe the idea that God would call some and not others to be complete rubbish. John 3:16, probably the most quoted verse in the Bible states, "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life." Christ came for the whole world, not just the few "elect". Which leads us to point three...
Limited Atonement- Limited Atonement states that, "Though Jesus’ sacrifice was sufficient for all, it was not efficacious for all." (Quoted from the above site) This is merely stating that Christ's death was indeed good enough to atone for all sins, but it only atoned for those who are "chosen". I find this doctrine a little difficult to articulate upon. While it seems logical to me to say that his atonement only affected the sins of those who choose to follow His path, I am hesitant to say that I fully agree with this teaching. On the one hand, I don't ascribe to unconditional election, so therefore can't say that only sins the predestined were cleansed. But on the other hand, if one doesn't accept Christ as their Lord, then they are still held accountable for their sins, which will not be covered at the judgment. I suppose the best description I can give this is that it is gray area, depending upon one's point of view.
Irresistible Grace- And so we move from a difficult gray area, to something far easier for me to side on, for it is closely coupled to the doctrine of predestination. Here is one that I wholeheartedly disagree with, probably more strongly than I disagree with any other Calvinist point. But allow me to digress to a bit of explanation. The doctrine of Irresistible Grace states that when one (of the elect) receives God's call to salvation, they cannot resist it. I suppose it's not surprising that I so strongly disagree with this doctrine, as one would have to accept predestination to accept irresistible grace. What I mainly object to in this doctrine is that it wipes away all hint of free will. If one is destined to be "saved" or "lost" without having any say in it, when why would one even have to exert an effort? The truth is that all are called to salvation, and the only person who can keep you from accepting it is yourself. God wants to see all attain salvation, and has made every necessary step for all to reach that goal. However, we each have free will as to whether or not we will accept that gift. If God made his call irresistible, then Man would have never seen the Fall in the first place, for God is a loving Father, who desires that none of his children sin nor reap the wages thereof. It is because God loves us that he gave us that precious and terrible gift of free will. I've heard many lament to me about the free will given us, because it would be so much easier to live in accordance with scripture if we had no choice. This is certainly true, but then all the beauty and value of our intimate relationship with God would be stripped away, and all meaning in it would be lost. For this, He stands there with arms wide open, calling all, forcing none, and waiting patiently.
Perseverance of the Saints- Now here is a doctrine that I have struggled with for as long as I've been old enough to debate doctrine. As a child (having been raised Baptist), it was one that I accepted without question. But once I was old enough to reason things out, I began to question it. Once again, I believe it comes down to perspective, for the same idea, worded differently, can cause one to say either yes or no on this particular point. I was actually discussing it with a friend just a few days ago, and made the argument that if one were to become "saved" at many protestants put it, and reverted back to a life of sin with no regard for Christ, then I would hardly expect that such an individual would truly attain salvation. To which he replied, "Ah, but such a person wasn't really saved in the first place, were they?" A great cause of confusion here is a misunderstanding in language. What Protestants refer to as becoming "saved", most Catholics call "conversion". To a Catholic, conversion is the first step on the path to salvation. To many Protestants, you gain salvation in the instant you are saved, and the rest of your Christian walk is the fulfillment of that salvation. They say that if you turn back, then you were never really saved to begin with. Like I said, same thing, different words. In each view the beginning is the same- profession in Christ. The end result is the same- heaven. And the entire path in between should be the same- a constant effort at morality (and of course Catholics get a wee stop in Purgatory too). My point is, that it didn't take much discussion for my friend and I to agree that whether or not you believe that salvation is something secured with the first step, or secured along the way, you must stay the course and keep the faith. It is in our earnest desire to serve Him that we find salvation, rather than ascribing to the "right" doctrine. Amen.
I did my best to accurately represent the Calvinist view, but I in no way claim to be an expert on their doctrines. If there happen to be any Calvinists out there who feel that I have misinterpreted or misrepresented their creeds, please set me straight, so I can make correction. -Vincent Christian
Okay, so I'd studied Calvinism back when I went to the Christian Academy I attended, but I'd long forgotten the premise of it, so had to do a little research. For those of you unfamiliar with Calvinism, check out the handy little site I looked up. http://www.mslick.com/tulip.htm From the moment I saw the word TULIP, my mind snapped back to essay questions I'd answered in high school. The acronym stands for:
Total Depravity
Unconditional Election
Limited Atonement
Irresistible Grace
Perseverance of the Saints
Let's break them down, and take on each point one at a time.
Total Depravity- I'd have to say that I agree on this one. But before you let that shock you, let me clarify. Total depravity sounds pretty harsh, like I'm saying we're all a bunch of psychos who skin people and eat babies or something. However this is far from what I mean, and what I believe the Calvinists are trying to get at. The point is that we are all sinners, and that not one individual (save Christ himself) lived or will live a sinless life. Some Catholics believe that the Blessed Mother never sinned, but, while I believe in the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, I don't believe that even our Holy Mother lived a completely sinless life. [Note: as pointed out by one of the comments, this is NOT a catholic teaching. Those who ascribe to such doctrine have misunderstood the official teaching of the Church.] So I guess I do buy into this one, though personally I think they should find a better name for this point. It just sounds mean.
Unconditional Election (also known as Predestination)- Moving on, we come to the second point, where my agreement with Calvinist doctrine comes to a screeching halt. The doctrine of unconditional election states that God has predestined some for salvation and others not. If you aren't one of the "elect" then there's nothing you can do to obtain salvation. Personally, I believe the idea that God would call some and not others to be complete rubbish. John 3:16, probably the most quoted verse in the Bible states, "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life." Christ came for the whole world, not just the few "elect". Which leads us to point three...
Limited Atonement- Limited Atonement states that, "Though Jesus’ sacrifice was sufficient for all, it was not efficacious for all." (Quoted from the above site) This is merely stating that Christ's death was indeed good enough to atone for all sins, but it only atoned for those who are "chosen". I find this doctrine a little difficult to articulate upon. While it seems logical to me to say that his atonement only affected the sins of those who choose to follow His path, I am hesitant to say that I fully agree with this teaching. On the one hand, I don't ascribe to unconditional election, so therefore can't say that only sins the predestined were cleansed. But on the other hand, if one doesn't accept Christ as their Lord, then they are still held accountable for their sins, which will not be covered at the judgment. I suppose the best description I can give this is that it is gray area, depending upon one's point of view.
Irresistible Grace- And so we move from a difficult gray area, to something far easier for me to side on, for it is closely coupled to the doctrine of predestination. Here is one that I wholeheartedly disagree with, probably more strongly than I disagree with any other Calvinist point. But allow me to digress to a bit of explanation. The doctrine of Irresistible Grace states that when one (of the elect) receives God's call to salvation, they cannot resist it. I suppose it's not surprising that I so strongly disagree with this doctrine, as one would have to accept predestination to accept irresistible grace. What I mainly object to in this doctrine is that it wipes away all hint of free will. If one is destined to be "saved" or "lost" without having any say in it, when why would one even have to exert an effort? The truth is that all are called to salvation, and the only person who can keep you from accepting it is yourself. God wants to see all attain salvation, and has made every necessary step for all to reach that goal. However, we each have free will as to whether or not we will accept that gift. If God made his call irresistible, then Man would have never seen the Fall in the first place, for God is a loving Father, who desires that none of his children sin nor reap the wages thereof. It is because God loves us that he gave us that precious and terrible gift of free will. I've heard many lament to me about the free will given us, because it would be so much easier to live in accordance with scripture if we had no choice. This is certainly true, but then all the beauty and value of our intimate relationship with God would be stripped away, and all meaning in it would be lost. For this, He stands there with arms wide open, calling all, forcing none, and waiting patiently.
Perseverance of the Saints- Now here is a doctrine that I have struggled with for as long as I've been old enough to debate doctrine. As a child (having been raised Baptist), it was one that I accepted without question. But once I was old enough to reason things out, I began to question it. Once again, I believe it comes down to perspective, for the same idea, worded differently, can cause one to say either yes or no on this particular point. I was actually discussing it with a friend just a few days ago, and made the argument that if one were to become "saved" at many protestants put it, and reverted back to a life of sin with no regard for Christ, then I would hardly expect that such an individual would truly attain salvation. To which he replied, "Ah, but such a person wasn't really saved in the first place, were they?" A great cause of confusion here is a misunderstanding in language. What Protestants refer to as becoming "saved", most Catholics call "conversion". To a Catholic, conversion is the first step on the path to salvation. To many Protestants, you gain salvation in the instant you are saved, and the rest of your Christian walk is the fulfillment of that salvation. They say that if you turn back, then you were never really saved to begin with. Like I said, same thing, different words. In each view the beginning is the same- profession in Christ. The end result is the same- heaven. And the entire path in between should be the same- a constant effort at morality (and of course Catholics get a wee stop in Purgatory too). My point is, that it didn't take much discussion for my friend and I to agree that whether or not you believe that salvation is something secured with the first step, or secured along the way, you must stay the course and keep the faith. It is in our earnest desire to serve Him that we find salvation, rather than ascribing to the "right" doctrine. Amen.
I did my best to accurately represent the Calvinist view, but I in no way claim to be an expert on their doctrines. If there happen to be any Calvinists out there who feel that I have misinterpreted or misrepresented their creeds, please set me straight, so I can make correction. -Vincent Christian
posted by Vincent Christian | 6:12 PM
3 Comments:
I wish to comment on two lines found in this blog. Ok, more than two but who has ever met a quiet priest huh?
"Some Catholics believe that the Blessed Mother never sinned,"
Personally, I know of no such Catholics. There may be, it’s possible, but not likely. We are living in an age when many doctrines of Catholicism are up for debate. This is especially true in the Official Doctrines of Mary. To say that the Blessed Mother never sinned would be an error and it isn’t the Official teaching of the Church at all. The doctrines of both the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption (Dormition) are doctrines of ancient existence in the Church, officially recognized in the past 2 centuries, however, neither one of these state that Mary never sinned. I am uncomfortable with the statement you made because it could appear that a “Sinless Mary” is part of the dogma of the Church, though some don’t believe it, when this is not the case at all. We both know Catholics don’t need anymore false accusations about their beliefs then what they already have. If I was a Protestant reading your blog I would see this and say, “See here is another false doctrine of the papist!” If anyone would say Mary never sinned, it would be a false opinion on behalf of the believer, and the Catholic Church would proclaim that as such.
"To a Catholic, conversion is the first step on the path to salvation."
Conversion is not the same as being “saved”. I see you trying to explain this here. For a faithful Catholic, conversion is an on-going process that lasts for a life time. One could have a serious moment of conversion like St. Paul on the road to Damascus, many people have this. This is still not the same as being saved though. My understanding of the Protestant being saved is a specific moment in time, when the person A- accepts he/she is a sinner B- believes on the Lord Jesus Christ C- confesses that Jesus is Lord before man. These are good points no doubt, but it is a false sense of security to say, “On such a day at such a time I got ‘saved’!” This insinuates that we are now in and have “arrived”. As long as we have breath we are on a faith journey. We are on the way of perfection that the saints speak of always. We are constantly striving for perfection, being revealed by God of our errors, and we amend our ways to become more like Him. This means a lifetime of many, many conversions.
Eternal Security simply means we are eternally secure that God will never turn His back on us, yet we can always turn our back on Him, we could fail on our way to perfection. Free will is always free. God won’t impose grace on us, he won’t impose mercy, His greatest attribute on us, nor will He impose salvation either. We are always free to choose. At the end of our life we shall stand before God and He will judge our lives according to this way of perfection, according to both our faith and works (contrary to the false belief of many Protestants) and if found worthy He will say, “Well done thou good and faithful servant.” I suppose many he won’t say this to, and many Protestants could remark, but Lord I was saved on/at … and He will say, “Depart from me for I never knew you!” Woe is that person, and woe is the person that convinced that person of such an easy yet false salvation. Truthfully, we have been saved, we are being saved, and we will be saved, through the mercy of God and according to our trust in Him.
Predestination and Election are true only in the sense that God, in His Divine Foreknowledge, has predestinated and elected that all mankind be saved. We have the free will to participate or not. Remember, hell was made for the fallen angels and the great adversary not us. God has never condemned one single person to eternal punishment and separation from Him, man has condemned his own self.
What, you think I make this stuff up? I've argued it with some who have tried to tell me this. Clearly they misunderstood the teaching of the church, but there are those out there who believe that she lived a sinless life. I'm not saying that it's the official teaching of the church, I just know what they tried to tell me.
On the second comment, one has to note the difference in "conversion of life" which I belive you described, and "converting to Christianity". When I said conversion, I meant "convering to Christianity", which Catholics tend to view as the first step in the process of salvaion, which can be (only in a minor sense) compared to the evangelical protestant view of "being saved". However there are deep differences, mainly in timing. Some protestants believe that the deal is sealed in that instant, and your salvation secured. Catholics on the other hand tend to see as something to be worked towards, as you so well say.
I wholeheartedly agree with your descriptions of eternal security and predestination, but there are people out there that believe that once you are say the "prayer to be saved" that you're in, and there's nothing you can do to be unsaved. Kind of like a "go to heaven free" card. I agree, that this is dangerous doctine. While responsible Protestants acknowledge their responsability to truly live their Christian faith, there are those who live in a false sense of security, walk on being unfaithful in their faith, and thinking that it'll all be okay.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Post a Comment
<< Home