I have seen a lot of different reactions from people in these sorts of conversations: in a couple instances I had people who just switched to full emotional outburst mode, not wanting to even discuss the topic and calling the idea of Calvinism "satanic." In such cases while I often press them to explain more, typically it's something ingrained deeply and it's beyond my purview to dislodge such thoughts. In other cases it's just because they have certain understandings about what the Bible says, and while we have had respectful conversations it's simply a matter of disagreement. And in some instances people have applied terms such as "four point Calvinist" to themselves, meaning that they believe in some of the less controversial doctrines that descend from the famous TULIP acronym, but limited atonement or unconditional election are sticking points for them, usually for the same reason as the second group but with less reticence over the term "Calvinist."
My desire here is to expound on why I believe in the doctrines of grace, and to explain my contention that, as Charles Spurgeon put it, "Calvinism is the gospel, and nothing else." I want to say first and foremost that I'm not here to defend John Calvin as a perfect man, and if your response to this involves wrongs committed by Calvin then quite frankly I'm not interested. John Calvin was just a man, and like myself, a sinner. But he provided a thorough, deep, and accurate understanding of what the Bible teaches about God, about us, and about God's role in bringing about salvation for our sakes.
First, a definition of terms: as mentioned above, the theological definition of Christianity known as "Calvinism," after the reformer John Calvin, is often described using the acronym TULIP. Of course, given that Calvin wrote volumes of work in explanation and defense of the faith, 5 letters are not exactly adequate to truly bring light to the massive work of exegesis he performed. But it is helpful in seeing the basics of the issue. The letters stand for:
T- Total depravity: that man by his nature is sinful and rebellious against God.
U- Unconditional election: that God's saving grace is not based on anything a man, spiritually dead and rebellious as he is, can do to earn it, but is entirely a gift of God.
L- Limited atonement: that Christ did not die on the cross for the sake of people who reject that gift and continue in rebellion, but specifically for those people chosen by God, what Paul calls "the elect" in Romans.
I- Irresistable grace: that when God calls a man to Himself through faith, that it is a call that releases said man from his bonds of sin, breathes new life into him and is not something a man could walk away from.
P-Perseverance of the saints: that God's will to save a man will not be disrupted by anything on the part of the one being saved or any outside force.
There is much debate and disagreement over this, and this is by no means intended to be a "if you don't believe this you're not saved" screed. On the contrary, if I believe in the perseverance of the saints, I can hardly claim that disagreements over theological points that do not affect the center--Christ crucified and resurrected--affect one's state of justification. But what I would like to do is talk about why I believe that one cannot dismiss limited atonement (or any of the other 5 points above, at that) without creating roadblocks to preaching the Gospel. That is to say: each doctrine feeds into and necessitates the next; they are not independent but are absolutely dependent upon each other.
To do this, let's take a look at one of my and my wife's favorite passages from the Bible, Ephesians 2:1-10:
And you were dead in the trespasses and sins in which you once walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience—among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind. But God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which he loved us, even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ—by grace you have been saved—and raised us up with him and seated us with him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus,so that in the coming ages he might show the immeasurable riches of his grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus. 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. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.Of course, Paul makes it his purpose to restate and make utterly clear the Gospel in virtually all his writings that we have, and this is no exception. I want to use this passage because I believe it is a great and clear example of how TULIP is not simply an acronym referring to a theological system or a set of presuppositions used for debate, but is a description of the Gospel, and that each concept defined therein feeds into the other--which means that, by taking one out, the others become illogical and lose their purpose.
Starting from the beginning, "total depravity" is quite clear: "And you were dead in the trespasses and sins in which you once walked, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience--among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind." Verses like this are one reason that this first doctrine is not nearly as controversial within Christianity: if we were spiritually dead, following Satan because of our very natures, then it's very clear that biblically the view of man is one of innate wickedness and separation from God. 2 Thessalonians 2:7 tells us that God is actually restraining evil in this world, which makes one wonder in horror at what man would be capable of were God to remove His restraint, given what wickedness we are very capable of within it. This is the reason Isaiah wrote that our righteous deeds are like filthy rags before a holy and just God: our evil natures serve to twist even good things towards wicked ends.
"Unconditional election" is immediate in the next section: "But God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which he loved us, even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ...." Our salvation is dependent entirely upon God's mercy. But the glorious thing, the idea which all believers can rejoice in, is that it is not a mercy given frugally or reluctantly, but given in full and abounding measure by our Father. The other side of this to understand, however, is one of the big sticking points for this issue: God's mercy is His to give. The objections to this I will cover in addressing the next point.
But first I want to focus on the issue of unconditional, and why this is important. The undeserved aspect, unmerited by anything we've done, is critical in understanding the Gospel and our relationship with God. There is no "That's not fair" with God, not if we really and truly know what that means. If we get what we deserve...we get death and hell. But more on this in speaking about objections below.
"Limited atonement" is hard to pick out here as I feel it melds very closely with unconditional election, but I would say that it is very clearly stated by the word "us." Who is "us?" Paul is not writing a general missive to all humans (though, of course, all can read it now) but a letter to a church, to fellow believers. By the context it is clear who "us" is: those who are saved. The point he is making is that Christ's work has intended its exact purpose: to show God's mercy to those whom He will show mercy to.
We often hear objections based on the idea that "He died for all." But let's step back a moment and think about this idea of substitutionary atonement--that is, that Jesus died because He took the place of the saved, absorbing the punishment we deserved. What Jesus did had its shadow in the Day of Atonement as it was taught to be observed by the Israelites centuries earlier. The sacrifices given--and practice of sending the "scapegoat" out into the wilderness--were images of what God would bring to completion on the cross of Christ. But when those sacrifices were given, they were not for all people on the earth. No--they were for the Israelites, God's chosen people, through whom He would bring about a greater atonement.
Likewise, can the death of Jesus be said to be for those who reject Him and will continue to until death? I hardly think so. If Jesus' death was just "prevenient grace," that is, a big invitation that God just hopes everyone will accept, that makes us "savable," then quite frankly what purpose does it serve? How does God being God make a bit of difference, if his sovereignty does not extend to actually completing the work He has begun? And why does the Bible say things like "Salvation belongs to the Lord" if, in fact, it actually belongs to man's will?
If it belongs to our will, then what we are preaching is a man-centered, man-focused Gospel, not one that is centered on God. If we are saying that we don't like this idea of "atonement only covers the elect" because it makes it seem like that God is saving some and not all...well, then we need to think about what we're saying about our relationship with God and what this passage is saying. Why is God extending mercy? Because we are guilty. Is He obligated to give us mercy? No, that's the very nature of the mercy being described here: God is giving it because He so desires, not because He is compelled to.
We can look at a much longer passage on the subject of "irresistible grace"--"But God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which he loved us, even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ—by grace you have been saved—and raised us up with him and seated us with him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus,so that in the coming ages he might show the immeasurable riches of his grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus. 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."
The opposing phrases paint a vivid picture: we were dead, but God made us alive. And the mechanism of that granting of life: grace, in which God does not simply make us aware of our sin and His holiness but then proceeds to grant us righteousness and actually bring us to be with Him. That is huge. We are by our very nature rebellious toward God, haters of that which is good, seeking every possible way to run away from God, and yet God has retained His people in the midst of this unyielding evil that we wage on the earth and instead of bringing a quick, total and deserved destruction to everyone, has given this message of mercy and sent it to spread across all the earth. And not only does He send that message, but He then opens hearts and transforms minds, setting free from sin and bringing life into what was dead. And He does it because He desires to show love and mercy, and therefore demonstrate His great glory.
Finally: "perseverance of the saints," or in more modern construction, eternal security. "For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them." This is echoed in Philippians 1:6: "And I am sure of this, that he who began a good work in you will bring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ." We are not arbitrary choices of God, nor are we people who stumbled into faith and who God grudgingly allows into the kingdom because we figured out the secret knock. We are his workmanship: we are who we are in Christ because He has set out to make us so. There is no aspect of us that disqualifies us from this because He is the one doing the qualifying, and there is nothing we are going to do that will surprise Him.
But what about my thesis that you cannot separate these doctrines from each other, that each is necessary to the other? We've explored them one at a time, so let's combine them based on what has been discussed: if man is sinful and dead in that sin, bound to rebel by his nature, then what is needed is not a way for man to prove himself good enough to God because such a thing is not possible--instead, what we need is mercy, and thankfully we have a God who gives it because it is His joy and for His glory to do so. Those whom God has chosen to save, He has made perfectly effective the way to their salvation--not that they will be perfect from salvation on, but that Jesus' work on the cross is not wasted in the case of anyone. And when the Holy Spirit moves to open a heart and set one free from rebellious resistance, He does so perfectly, and sets about the beginning of work that will result in a man transformed by grace, able to stand before God justified, sanctified, and glorified.
As long as this has turned out to be, I feel like I am only barely scratching the surface. Were I a textual scholar I could spend time discussing the implication of the original language; if I were preaching this as a sermon I would probably create a series on it, to discuss deeper implications and talk about personal reflection. And in time, I hope to get to all those things, God willing, because the richness of understanding what the Bible says about our relationship with God, how we have been rescued from our worst natures by God for the sake of showing His love, is deep beyond imagination.
And ultimately, my desire here is to impress upon whoever reads this the idea that this pursuit of theological understanding and depth is not something separate from a deep love for God, but instead is driven by it and a desire for more of it. I pray for the fullest measure of His grace being poured out on me, and rejoice in knowing that He delights to give it.
No comments:
Post a Comment