This is a post that will probably create quite a stir, but I am going ahead with it anyway. In a recent posting discussion on Physicsgeek's and Peter Bedow's Blogs regarding the recent Veggie Tales- NBC controversy, PhysicsGeek made the following comment
"My last question: Why should VeggieTales exist at all? Why don't we just make a half-hour CG cartoon with a talking tomato telling us the Four Spiritual Laws or explaining TULIP?" Well, I for one would not want my kids to learn TULIP because it is unBiblical. For those wondering what I am referring to, TULIP is an acronym which describes the basic tenets of Reformed (Calvinist) Theology TULIP stands for the following
T-Total Depravity of Man- Mankind is, apart from God, unable to love God.This tenet is Biblical. (Explanations will follow, using Scriptures to make my arguments)
U-Unconditional Election-"Election means "choice." God's choice from eternity of whom he will bring to himself, is not based on foreseen virtue, merit or faith in the persons he chooses but rather is unconditionally grounded in his own sovereign decision. This does not mean that final salvation itself is unconditional; rather, it means that, in the Calvinist view, the condition upon which salvation hinges (faith) is given to those whom God has unconditionally chosen to receive it."-(From Wikipedia.com) Reformed .org has this to say: "Unconditional Election is the doctrine which states that God chose those whom he was pleased to bring to a knowledge of himself, not based upon any merit shown by the object of his grace and not based upon his looking forward to discover who would "accept" the offer of the gospel. God has elected, based solely upon the counsel of his own will, some for glory and others for damnation (Romans 9:15,21). He has done this act before the foundations of the world (Ephesians 1:4-8).This doctrine does not rule out, however, man's responsibility to believe in the redeeming work of God the Son (John 3:16-18). Scripture presents a tension between God's sovereignty in salvation, and man's responsibility to believe which it does not try to resolve. Both are true -- to deny man's responsibility is to affirm an unbiblical hyper-calvinism; to deny God's sovereignty is to affirm an unbiblical Arminianism.The elect are saved unto good works (Ephesians 2:10). Thus, though good works will never bridge the gulf between man and God that was formed in the Fall, good works are a result of God's saving grace. This is what Peter means when he admonishes the Christian reader to make his "calling" and "election" sure (2 Peter 1:10). Bearing the fruit of good works is an indication that God has sown seeds of grace in fertile soil.This tenet, and the next one, are not Biblical
L-Limited Atonement -Limited Atonement is a doctrine offered in answer to the question, "for whose sins did Christ atone?" The Bible teaches that Christ died for those whom God gave him to save (John 17:9). Christ died, indeed, for many people, but not all (Matthew 26:28). Specifically, Christ died for the invisible Church -- the sum total of all those who would ever rightly bear the name "Christian" (Ephesians 5:25).This doctrine often finds many objections, mostly from those who think that Limited Atonement does damage to evangelism. We have already seen that Christ will not lose any that the father has given to him (John 6:37). Christ's death was not a death of potential atonement for all people. Believing that Jesus' death was a potential, symbolic atonement for anyone who might possibly, in the future, accept him trivializes Christ's act of atonement. Christ died to atone for specific sins of specific sinners. Christ died to make holy the church. He did not atone for all men, because obviously all men are not saved. Evangelism is actually lifted up in this doctrine, for the evangelist may tell his congregation that Christ died for sinners, and that he will not lose any of those for whom he died! (From Reformed.org) This tenet is not Biblical
I-irresistible Grace-The result of God's Irresistible Grace is the certain response by the elect to the inward call of the Holy Spirit, when the outward call is given by the evangelist or minister of the Word of God. Christ, himself, teaches that all whom God has elected will come to a knowledge of him (John 6:37). Men come to Christ in salvation when the Father calls them (John 6:44), and the very Spirit of God leads God's beloved to repentance (Romans 8:14). What a comfort it is to know that the gospel of Christ will penetrate our hard, sinful hearts and wondrously save us through the gracious inward call of the Holy Spirit (I Peter 5:10)! (From Reformed.org) This tenet is Biblical!
P-Perseverance of the Saints-"Perseverance of the Saints is a doctrine which states that the saints (those whom God has saved) will remain in God's hand until they are glorified and brought to abide with him in heaven. Romans 8:28-39 makes it clear that when a person truly has been regenerated by God, he will remain in God's stead. The work of sanctification which God has brought about in his elect will continue until it reaches its fulfillment in eternal life (Phil. 1:6). Christ assures the elect that he will not lose them and that they will be glorified at the "last day" (John 6:39). The Calvinist stands upon the Word of God and trusts in Christ's promise that he will perfectly fulfill the will of the Father in saving all the elect."- This is the doctrine of "Once Saved, Always saved" or "The Eternal Security of Believers"
Here is my explanation on Biblical/UnBiblical
T- Biblical; Romans 3:10 As it is written [Psalms 14,53], There is none righteous, no, not one: Rom 3:11 There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God. Rom 3:12 They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one.
U- Not Biblical! "God has elected, based solely upon the counsel of his own will, some for glory and others for damnation (Romans 9:15,21)" There are some because of the choices they have made to reject God, God has made "vessels unto dishounour" (see Romans 1:24). A loving and righteous God would NEVER send anyone to hell for something that was not his fault. If U is true, how does one explain Paul, who wrote Romans, telling Timothy in 1Timothy 2:1-4 "I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men; For kings, and for all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty. For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour; Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth. If God wants all men to be saved (ie experience eternal life with Him in heaven), why would He elect (choose) some to be eternally damned to hell? Other Scriptures that contradict this tenet include Ezekiel 33:11" Say unto them, As I live, saith the Lord GOD, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked; but that the wicked turn from his way and live: turn ye, turn ye from your evil ways; for why will ye die, O house of Israel? " Again, if God has no pleausure in the death of the wicked, but wants the wicked to turn to Him, why would He choose some to be eternally separated from Him? The point is that there are those who have chosen to reject Christ, but that God, who is love, could not have chosen anybody to be eternally cursed, with the possible exception of Judas Iscariot, whose betrayal and destruction were prophesied by David in the Psalms. (I say possible because Judas was not forced to betray Jesus- The Bible foretold of his decision, but God did not force him to do this. Again reference Romans 1:24)
L- Not only is this UnBiblical, This tenet is absurd. Those who believe this tenet point to Matthew 26:28, which says that Christ's blood was shed for "many". The problem, is that then they ignore verses such as I John 2:1-2: My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous: And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world. The "Whole World" is pretty inclusive. Other Scriptures that those who beleive this tenet are then forced to either ignore or rationalize away include I Timothy 2:1-4 (referenced above), John 1:7, John 12: 33, Titus 2:11, and John 3:16.I have called this tenet absurd because it does not make any sense. If God is love (I John 4:7) and this God , who is Love, chose to die for some men, why would He not die for all of mankind? It is ridiculous to think that a loving God would ever die for some and not all. No, Jesus Died for all of us. Another problem with this doctrine is that creates pride in Christians with the false notion that we are somehow more special that everyone else because God chose to save us and not the person next to us. It also turns non-Christans off to the message of grace and forgiveness that is found by trusting in Jesus because How can we really be sure that anyone of us is truly part of the "elect"? This doctrine also can lead to the problem of Christians who use their "Liberty as an occasion to the flesh" I mean if one's salvation is secure and they are part of the elect than it really doesnt matter what they do
I- Biblical! God's grace saves us (Ephesians 2:8-9) and The Father draws us to Christ by his Spirit working in our Hearts (John 6:44, Romans 2:4)
P- I will discuss this next post, because there is much I Want to say about the isssue of whether one can lose their salvation or not!
I suspect That this post may spark a very interesting debate on all of this. I Just ask that all comments be civil and loving in the Spirit of Christain Brotherhood
2 comments:
I again apologize for a hit-and-run here, but I did want to post a short comment on "L". This is partly a question of semantics, partly not. I think the way a Calvinist would frame the question is to ask, NOT "For whom did Christ die?" but "For whom, in an eternal sense, was Christ's death effective?" I think that a Calvinist might give different answers to those two questions. The latter form of the question gives rise to the idea of "Limited Atonement". Unless you believe in Inclusivism, which states that all men are ultimately saved. (I know you don't!!)
On "U" - this is where it becomes less semantic and more serious. What it boils down to is this: Who is ultimately responsible for salvation, me or God? The Calvinist position is that the faith in Jesus Christ that God requires for salvation is in and of itself a sovereign gift of God.
The best statement of this that I've heard is by Charles Spurgeon: "But I tell you what will be the best proof of that; it is the great fact that you never did meet a Christian in your life who ever said he came to Christ without Christ coming to him. You have heard a great many Arminian sermons, I dare say; but you never heard an Arminian prayer - for the saints in prayer appear as one in word, and deed and mind. An Arminian on his knees would pray desperately like a Calvinist. He cannot pray about free-will: there is no room for it. Fancy him praying,
"Lord, I thank thee I am not like those poor presumptuous Calvinists Lord, I was born with a glorious free-will; I was born with power by which I can turn to thee of myself; I have improved my grace. If everybody had done the same with their grace that I have, they might all have been saved. Lord, I know thou dost not make us willing if we are not willing ourselves. Thou givest grace to everybody; some do not improve it, but I do. There are many that will go to hell as much bought with the blood of Christ as I was; they had as much of the Holy Ghost given to them; they had as good a chance, and were as much blessed as I am. It was not thy grace that made us to differ; I know it did a great deal, still I turned the point; I made use of what was given me, and others did not-that is the difference between me and them."
(me again) How many times have you yourself, in praying for your unsaved friends, asked God to "turn their hearts"? That's in effect a statement that you do believe "U" as a theological proposition.
Please don't read any harshness into this; I'd like to take the viewpoint of Spurgeon, who was actually fairly conciliatory. You can read it in his own words here. Also, you should know that these have not been easy concepts for me to digest, and I would still say that I have not fully digested them, and I've been a member of a PCA church for three or four years! But having been exposed to these concepts, it's difficult for me to read the Bible anymore without seeing Calvinist theology jumping out at me from every page.
I would also argue that if you really believe "T", then "U" tends to follow from that fairly naturally.
Well, this was longer than I thought :) I'll be praying for your upcoming decisions, too.
Can we talk? I suspect that part of the difficulty here is with your understanding of the terms, not with their biblical standing. I wrote a series on the topic intended to help clear up some of the misunderstandings that maybe might help you.
There is an Introduction, then relatively short posts on T, U, L, I, and P. Of particular interest is the stuff on "U" and "P", as I think you might have some misunderstanding on the intent there.
The "P" is particularly important, as I am quite certain that many people don't understand Perseverance of the Saints. It is not "Once Saved Always Saved" in the least.
Rather than fighting what you call an "unbiblical" doctrine here, maybe it would benefit you to find out the truth about it first.
Post a Comment