“I have come to realize that all parts of TULIP either stand or fall together - it's hard to understand a "3-pointer...”
I couldn’t agree more. This reminded me of the discussions I had a few months ago with various Presbyterian ministers (PCUSA) on the issue of Calvinism and the 5-points (TULIP). Here is the question I asked:
“Hi. I am considering becoming a Presbyterian and I am interested in finding out what your beliefs are regarding Predestination. Specifically, I would like to know (1) how central is the Calvinist doctrine of Predestination to the Presbyterian faith? (2) What percentage of Presbyterian ministers would you estimate are strict 5 point Calvinists? (3) And, could you please share your individual opinion on the doctrine?”
The responses I got were mixed. A few admitted to being 5-point Calvinists. But the rest resisted such a label and instead opted to call themselves 3-point Calvinists, 4-point Calvinists, or simply rejected the entire association with Calvinism.
This led me to question how a person could logically be a 3 or 4 point Calvinist. Does such a thing exist? To point out the logical inconsistencies, here are a few excerpts from the email exchanges I engaged in with one of the ministers:
Rev. Jones: “I have no idea how many ministers believe in the five points of Calvinism. I must confess that I am probably a four pointer, not quite comfortable with Calvin’s certainty around “Limited Atonement.” The notion that God has from the beginning of time destined some for damnation is unsettling to me. While God is utterly free, and does not need to consult this pastor concerning such matters, as I focus upon what I do about God in Jesus Christ, who is “the one sufficient revelation of God” and the Word of God incarnate, I am less apt to want to limit this Great God in any way! I trust in God through Jesus Christ for my salvation, for I am a sinner saved only by His grace. I would commend that grace to all, believing that God wills and wants all to know of the love He sent Jesus to embody and proclaim. I will leave the rest up to God, trusting that He alone knows what is best, and will do it.”
To which I replied:
“I am trying to understand how a person can be a 4-point Calvinist. I am not saying it isn't possible, just that there is apparently something I am not getting. If you believe in irresistible grace, (assuming you are not a universalist that believes all people will be saved), how then can you not believe in limited atonement? For, if God's grace can not be revisited by the "elect" and the non-elect can't believe without it, due to mankind’s total depravity, then isn't the only logical conclusion that can be made is that unless every person is elect then Christ only died for the sins of some and not all?”
He responded with this comment:
“If my position on this is not utterly logical, which you quite clearly point out, and which I was quite aware before you helped me to see this logical inconsistency, it is because, to quote Pascal in another context, ‘The heart has its reasons of which the mind knows nothing.’”
Wow. What kind of theology is that supposed to be?
I had recently read a post at Thinklings that talked about what it means to be Reformed and since it echoed my own questions, I voiced my concerns. You can check out Linked from Monergism.com
Commenting on my assertion that the five points stand or fall together, Jared made this observation:
"...Even though it's unpopular to say so, I don't think anyone can really be a 4-point Calvinist or a 3-Point Calvinist. Grant the first point (Total Depravity) as understood in classic Reformed theology, and the next four fall right into place. You can't have one without the other. This doesn't stop folks from trying, obviously, and usually they have to do so by altering previous points somewhat.
I feel the same way about free-willers who say they really believe salvation is by God's grace alone. If that's really true, I'd like to ask, why is salvation contingent for them upon "acceptance." It's illogical.
But that's the game we all play, and we all play it for the most part to get along. Debates are great, but I'm not a huge fan of dissention. I'll be danged if I'll insist upon my good friend Kenny that he believes Christians are saved by works. I might believe that theologically, but in good faith I trust his heart and mind to the Holy Spirit and his biblical conscience. I know he does the same for me."
1 comment:
;-)
Post a Comment