That, I think, is something I've never written on. I can spend a great deal of time (and I have) explaining what I mean by Calvinism and the Scriptures that bring me to those beliefs. I find it, biblically, unavoidable. But then I pull out the listing or "those beliefs" and ... sigh ... I really don't like them. You've heard them, I'm sure. They are the classic "TULIP."
T Total DepravitySo I have to explain what every one of them means because they are not likely what you think they mean or, at least, not what they mean on the face of them. They speak of the sin nature that prevents Man from saving himself -- the sinfulness of Man. The biblical concept of Election is explained as not being conditioned on me. The concept of the Atonement is that Christ's death actually pays for every sin the Elect have or will commit. Given the condition of Man in sin and the election of individuals on the basis of God's choice rather than something in the person, it is important to understand that God's call can override human inability to respond. And, after receiving such a marvelous salvation, you have to wonder whether and how such a salvation can be maintained, and the principle of God's perseverance for the saints answers that dilemma.
U Unconditional Election
L Limited Atonement
I Irresistible Calling
P Perseverance of the Saints
These are all fine and dandy. I can show you where I get them; not from some clever writings of John Calvin or subsequent folk, but from the pages of my Bible. I can demonstrate how they fit together in the texts, the contexts, and in the whole assembly of God's Word. It just fits.
But, that's primarily "doctrine," a bad word for some and somewhat remote for others. That is, "So what?" Accepting that this is all true from the pages of God's Word, what does that give me? I have to say that the outcome is wonderful.
Listing them in the TULIP order, here is what I get out of it.
- A clear and practical picture of the true nature of Man.
- An overwhelming realization of the immensity of God's grace in choosing me.
- The complete certainty that Christ's death satisfied God's just demands for the payment of my sins.
- A genuine gratitude that God would not let my fallen condition prevent Him from saving me.
- The amazing peace from the confidence in God's pledge that guarantees that my salvation doesn't rest on my good works to be kept intact.
We may disagree on this point or that. We may dislike "Calvinism" as a term or as a connection to some guy hundreds of years ago. We may differ over points or precision. We may agree that all we see and hear from "Calvinists" is not necessarily good stuff. Sure. But given the solid foundation of the principles in the Word and the overwhelming peace and joy they bring, would you really want to ask me to toss them out? That would just seem unkind.
11 comments:
Who do you suppose will be the first to oppose me? Will it be the hyper-Calvinists who actually do follow Calvin and are offended that I disavow him or the anti-Calvinists who hate the man with a passion (because they're much more loving) even after I disavowed him?
Given what I just deleted, I suspect the latter.
Someday, Craig, you and I ought to meet in person. You know ... given the apparently extreme number of comments given to me about you and to you about me. Hey, maybe you are me!
That's entirely possible. In reality, I'd love to connect at some point, I think it'd be fun to actually meet face to face. I've thought, and said so, that I think that sitting down with Dan for a beverage could actually have been enjoyable at one point. I'd like to think that things would be toned down in person, but there has been a lot of stuff said since I first wrote that.
If, for some strange reason, I ever head down to the desert, I'll let you know.
I'd think that it's likely that the anti Calvinists would be the more vitriolic of the two options. But who knows.
I also would like to meet with those whose only contact have been through blogs. It always makes me wonder how we'd feel about each other afterwards...better?...worse?
Strangely, I'd also like to see some of the usual suspects in person as well, though admittedly more covertly at first...if at all.
I've met some ... a few. Always a pleasure. Like Craig, I've thought that meeting Dan or Feodor in person would probably be very unlike their online presence. But, who knows?
I've thought how funny it would be if Feodor drives a luxury motorcar and lives in an elegant estate with a wine cellar, not too far from his country club.
At one point I definitely think Dan could have been pleasant to meet in person, we share enough interests. But I’m not sure at this point. Not sure about Feo.
This whole Internet thing grieves me at times. As an example, one time someone who knew me quite well was offended by something I wrote to him in an Internet conversation. I answered back, "You know me. Do you really think that what you understood was what I intended to convey?" He realized his mistake. No, I wouldn't have meant that. But all the clues and information that a face-to-face interaction would have provided are missing from an Internet conversation and all the face-to-face inhibitors -- courtesy, personal affront, immediate feedback, accountability, etc. -- are also missing.
I tend to be able to get along with just about anybody in person. It's this Internet interface that gets in the way.
I have a running debate on a variety of issues on Facebook with a co-worker. We get real nasty with each other to the extent that some of our other friends wonder why we bother with the other. But when we meet up during the workday, we're laughing our butts off over all sorts of other things, and even sometimes about our social media discourse. It's kinda the reverse of what we're talking about, having known each other before connecting online.
That's in a sense exactly what I was talking about. "In person" is something different. If you know the person, then Internet exchanges can be shaped (and controlled) by that.
Post a Comment