You've all heard of John the Baptist. I'm quite sure you've never heard of Saint John the Reformed. Truly, it would be nonsensical. The object of the Reformation was not to make the Church better, but to return it to a biblical condition, and since John was writing the Bible, he, by definition, couldn't be Reformed. And, of course, since Calvin didn't come along for another 1500 years or so and Calvinism itself didn't really come about for another hundred years or so, it wouldn't quite be right to refer to him as "John the Calvinist." That being said, I'd still like to introduce you to Saint John the Reformed by demonstrating how John in his Gospel concurs with Calvinism in its "TULIP" basics.
Total Depravity holds that humans beings are sinful at their core. They are incapable by nature of coming to God. While most people today believe in the intrinsic goodness of the human being, Total Depravity holds to the intrinsic evil of the human nature. In the Gospel of John we read this: "He was in the world, and the world was made through Him, yet the world did not know Him" (John 1:10). This speaks of a core problem. If it was so that a few didn't know Him, you could chalk it up to a problem of the few. John says it was a world-wide problem. Worse, John goes on to say, "He came to His own, and His own people did not receive Him" (John 1:11). You may wish to excuse the world; they didn't know, right? However, His own people had been given centuries of notification that He was coming ... and they missed it. This is a problem of humans being sinful at the core. In Matthew Jesus said, "I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven" (Matt. 5:20). Of these scribes and Pharisees, the minimum standard of righteousness that Jesus held for all people, Jesus said in John's Gospel:
If God were your Father, you would love Me, for I came from God and I am here. I came not of My own accord, but He sent Me. Why do you not understand what I say? It is because you cannot bear to hear My word. You are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father's desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, and has nothing to do with the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks out of his own character, for he is a liar and the father of lies. But because I tell the truth, you do not believe Me. Which one of you convicts Me of sin? If I tell the truth, why do you not believe Me? Whoever is of God hears the words of God. The reason why you do not hear them is that you are not of God" (John 8:42-47).What, then, is John saying about the nature of the most righteous people in the nation? They are liars and not of God. And John 6:65 may not sound like an argument for Total Depravity, but look at it anyway. Jesus was explaining why it was that some of His disciples didn't believe in Him. He said, "This is why I told you that no one can come to Me unless it is granted him by the Father." What does this have to do with Man's core problem of sin? It's in the basic phrase, "No one can." Jesus makes the same claim in verse 44 of the same chapter. No one can. Human beings, on their own, lack the ability to either believe or to come to Him. That, dear reader, is Total Depravity.
Unconditional Election is the premise that God chooses whom He will save without that choice being conditioned on something of merit in the one being chosen. It is an echo of Paul's "lest any man should boast." It says that I have nothing to offer God to incline Him to choose me ... and neither does anyone else. He chooses without condition of the Elect. What does John say? First, John has one of the clearest statements on Election that you'll find anywhere in Scripture. Jesus told His disciples, "You did not choose Me, but I chose you and appointed you that you should go and bear fruit and that your fruit should abide, so that whatever you ask the Father in My name, He may give it to you" (John 15:16). Who chooses whom? Jesus is not unclear. "Oh," the other side objects, "but God chooses whom He chooses based on the fact that He knows in advance they will choose Him." It sounds nice, I'm sure, but John, again, objects. "To all who did receive Him, who believed in His name, He gave the right to become children of God, who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God" (John 1:12-13). Our birth into the family of God is not a product of our blood line ("not of blood"), our godly living ("not of the will of the flesh"), and not our right choices ("not of will of man"). (See also where Paul emphasizes the same fact in Rom. 9:16.) We become one of the Chosen Ones, the Elect, on the basis of God's choice alone. We don't choose Him; He chooses us. That, dear reader, is Unconditional Election.
Limited Atonement is one of the most disliked, most misunderstood concepts in the list of five. Most people think it refers to shortcomings in Christ's sacrifice. They think it is saying that Christ's atonement was only sufficient for the Elect. That is not the point, unfortunate name aside. Instead, the question that is being asked and answered in this doctrine is this: When Christ chose to die on the cross, what was His intent? Was it His intent to save everyone, or was it His intent to save the Elect? Was it His aim to provide forgiveness for all and He failed, or was it His aim to provide atonement for the Elect and He succeeded? John's Gospel, in fact, is one of the most common places to find the claim that Christ died with the Elect in mind. You'll find it in two specific places. In John 10:14-15 we read, "I am the good shepherd. I know My own and My own know Me, just as the Father knows Me and I know the Father; and I lay down My life for My sheep." Notice that He doesn't say He lays down His life for everyone. He reiterates this concept in His High Priestly prayer in John 17. Here He prays for His disciples:
I am praying for them. I am not praying for the world but for those whom You have given Me, for they are Yours (John 17:9).Jesus doesn't pull any punches here. He excludes the world explicitly from His prayer. He prays only for His disciples and "for those who will believe in Me through their word" (John 17:20). All believers, then, are in mind and those who will not believe are not. This is the intention of Limited Atonement.
Irresistible Grace argues that when that moment comes, the Holy Spirit is able to save a person despite their own possible resistance. It does not hold that the Spirit cannot be resisted. It is the claim that God is capable of saving anyone He chooses despite their objections. Does John comment on this? I think so. "All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and whoever comes to Me I will never cast out" (John 6:37). Note that there is no question. There is no suspense. Will the Chosen come to Christ? There is no doubt. They will come. Jesus says, "I have other sheep that are not of this fold. I must bring them also, and they will listen to My voice" (John 10:16). John 6:44 says, "No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day." Again, there is no question. Those who are drawn by the Father will be raised up on the last day. Of course, "come to Me" is certain as implied in the middle. Clearly, then, those who are His sheep will be drawn to Him regardless of the objections or resistance they might have. That goes to irresistibility. Just like Lazarus, the physically dead man, all of the Elect, though spiritually dead, when called by God, will come forth (John 11:43).
The Perseverance of the Saints is perhaps the most misunderstood and maligned by both those who disagree and those who think they are agreeing. The doctrine is sometimes called "Eternal Security". Sometimes it is incorrectly connected with "Once Saved, Always Saved" (OSAS), which isn't exactly the same thing. The two share the position that a spiritually dead person ("T") who has been chosen by God according to God's purposes ("U"), paid for by Christ's death and resurrection ("L"), and certainly called from death to life ("I") will absolutely remain one of the Elect and end up in heaven. The difference between OSAS and the Perseverance doctrine is that the latter includes the certainty that God's work of bringing a person to life will result in a fruitful Christian. John agrees. One of the most quoted proofs for Eternal Security is John 10:28-29.
I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of My hand. My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all, and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father's hand.John, quoting Jesus, gives very little wiggle room. Those who belong to Him are given eternal life. If that life is eternal, in what sense can it stop? You have to ask the same thing with John 3:36 and John 5:24. But that's the easiest question. He defines "eternal life" as "never perish" and says, not once but twice, "No one will snatch them out." Now, you can squirm all you want, but unless you are willing to qualify yourself as "no one", you have to admit that not even you can snatch you out of His hand. Jesus makes the same point earlier in one of the passages we've already peeked at.
All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and whoever comes to Me I will never cast out. For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will but the will of Him who sent Me. And this is the will of Him who sent Me, that I should lose nothing of all that He has given Me, but raise it up on the last day (John 6:37-39).We saw this for Irresistible Grace, but Jesus also claims "I should lose nothing of all that He has given Me." Either He was mistaken and He would lose some of those whom the Father has given Him, or the outcome is certain and not one will be lost. Now, the fundamental difference between OSAS and Perseverance of the Saints is the question of fruit. John addresses this in a couple of places. In John 14:15 Jesus says, "If you love Me, you will keep My commandments." In John 15 there is the famous "Vine and the branches" metaphor. Those changed by God cannot help but produce fruit. (The entire epistle of 1 John is about that topic.) We already saw in John 15:16, "I chose you and appointed you that you should go and bear fruit and that your fruit should abide." The Elect are chosen for fruit, and that fruit abides. Thus, Perseverance of the Saints, the idea that those whom God has saved will certainly be enabled by God to remain in Christ until the end, is an idea you'll find throughout the Gospel of John.
It can be questionable to pull an idea out of a single passage. I've pulled several ideas out of a single book. It doesn't take much effort, in fact, to find these concepts all over Scripture. I am convinced that John the Beloved, had he been around during the Reformation, would have concurred with these points that today form what is referred to as "Calvinism." You may not be convinced, but I would hope that you can surely see that the accusation that "Calvinism is not found in the Bible" is not an accurate objection. At least, it appears that John didn't think so.
25 comments:
I once heard a pastor state that Calvinism is unbiblical and proceeded to try to show how. In my view, all he proved was how he disagreed with the interpretations made, but definitely didn't prove it to be unbiblical. The Reformers wanted to bring the Gospel back into the Church, not create something new.
This is a perfect theme for Reformation Month and a great summary on this topic (once I sorted out John the Baptist, John the Beloved Apostle, and John Calvin :).
Although I became a believer at age 20, it was many years before I heard the terms “Calvinism,” “Reformed (or Covenant) theology,” or “TULIP.” I found “the five points” a bit hard to swallow at first, but I have come to see that those doctrines are all very clearly taught in the Bible, as I have studied and understand it. My textbook of sorts (apart from the Bible) is the book, What Is Reformed Theology? Understanding the Basics,” by R.C. Sproul. He uses the following terms as his “five points,” which I agree are an improvement over TULIP (but they don’t make a nice acrostic). (After each of Sproul’s labels, I wrote the summary phrase I saw in your points):
--Humanity’s Radical Corruption (instead of Total Depravity): “no one, in and of himself, can go to God”
--God’s Sovereign Choice (instead of Unconditional Election): “God chooses whom He will with no regard to anyone’s merit”
--Christ’s Purposeful Atonement (instead of Limited Atonement): “Christ achieved perfect atonement for the Elect”
--The Spirit’s Effective Call (instead of Irresistible Grace): “all those whom Christ calls to Himself will indeed come”
--God’s Preservation of the Saints (instead of Perseverance of the Saints): “the granting of eternal life to believers cannot and will not be revoked, for Christ will lose none of His sheep”
Just a thought about the last point, regarding the verse, “…no one will snatch them out of My hand. My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all, and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father's hand.” For many years, I believed that although “snatching someone out of God’s hand” was impossible, someone could “jump out of His hand” (i.e. renounce belief in Christ)--because we see that all the time. But then I realized that would occur only if Satan were to in effect lead them to jump; I assume that God, who “is greater than all,” would not permit Satan to do this (i.e. steal one of Christ’s sheep). Also, once I learned of the transformative work that the Holy Spirit accomplishes in the regenerated heart at the New Birth, I realized that those truly in Christ will not “jump ship,” so the speak (1 Joh. 2:19).
As an aside, I recently read in a post at The Cripplegate that “in the Deep South TULIP is a four-lettered word.” I was very surprised--shocked even--to learn that about “the Bible Belt of the USA.” Made me glad I live where I do, so I can be taught what I consider to be proper biblical doctrine. Still, a local friend told me recently that her pastor (of a good church) just finished teaching on “Calvinism” and it was not well received, with one family even leaving the church over his preaching on Election. My response was, Election is clearly taught in Scripture, so what was their problem exactly? Better to have followed through with that study to its completion.
John also warns is that those that leave the church never were really a part of the church, otherwise they would have stayed.
Right, David; that is the 1 John 2:19 reference I showed above. I was musing about whether those who leave the flock “jumped out of God’s hand,” so to speak, i.e. were chosen but rejected their election (because we all know people who seemed to have done that). Or perhaps that “jumping out of His hand” is only temporary, i.e. they fall away but return (like I myself did several times in my past). I was thinking through those possible scenarios in light of the act of conversion--i.e. being born of God and not of the will of man (John 1:13)--as it fits with “irresistible grace” and “perseverance of the saints.” (Hopefully that makes sense.)
As you can see, I find it interesting to consider how these particular doctrines mesh. (I know that Stan has written about these “five points” in more detail, so I’ll check his archives for that.)
Lorna, the 1 John 2:19 does not allow for "jumped out." It says specifically, "They were not of us, for if they had been of us, they would have remained with us." Further, the problem of "jumped out" is that, when Jesus said, "No man can take them out of My hand," they would (rightly) respond, "Well, I did." Biblically, Jesus said, "Of those the Father gives Me, I will not lose one." "Jumped out" tells Jesus He was ... mistaken. 1 John 2:19 answers, "Why did these people leave the faith?" with "They never, actually, had it." Much like those in Matt 7:21-23.
I get what you are saying. I was thinking about those that were not really His, i.e. not truly given to Him by the Father, but who appeared to be converted. When I believed my salvation was my decision, my choice, I could see that falling away as one “jumping out of God’s Hand”--i.e. almost in His family but in the end not so afterall. As I said in my first comment above about this, I used to wonder along these lines, but I have come to understand it properly, now that I accept the points of “the Spirit’s effective call” and “God’s preservation of the saints.” An improper understanding of conversion and acceptance of “decisional regeneration” led me to think that former way.
Stan, As I am sure you can tell from my past comments here, a prime interest of mine has always been understanding Christian doctrine and thereby forming a solidly biblical faith. I must say today that while I thought that I accepted the five points of TULIP as clearly taught biblical doctrine, I also see the validity of the “anti-Calvinistic” position (which was, in fact, what I considered to be biblical for the first 30+ years of my Christian walk). I very much dislike being uncertain about the doctrines you discussed here, so I for one will need to do some more research and deliberation before I know better what to believe for sure. In particular, I need to understand how the dual realities of God’s sovereignty and man’s responsibility--which I see so clearly in Scripture--best fit within these disparate points of view.
Stan, I am starting to read through your “Reformed Theology” category and other TULIP-related posts. (There’s a lot there, so it will take me a while.) Quick question: when people talk about being a “4-point Calvinist” or “3-point” etc. which point(s) do you think they reject? Is there one (or two) in particular that seems to be the sticking point, in your experience?
Also, I read in your old posts that you don’t particular like the TULIP labels. What do you think about the ones I listed above (from R.C. Sproul)? I think they are a huge improvement, so I am curious why you don’t use them instead of TULIP (I think you like Sproul, but I might be wrong).
Finally, if you have any thoughts about what man’s responsibility would be in the pre-ordained salvation event of a sovereign God, I would love to hear them. (I searched your blog for “human responsibility” but didn’t get anything relevant.) All I can see off-hand is that man would need to (1) recognize his depravity (and therefore forsake any form of self-righteousness) and (2) obey the call of the Holy Spirit and believe on Christ. Would that cover man’s part, would you say? I realize that TULIP is not meant to be the entire doctrine of the Bible in a nutshell, but if not, what is its purpose?
There are a couple of the "5-points" that are commonly rejected. The first is the Perseverance of the Saints. There are a sufficient number of biblical texts that seem to reference losing one's salvation that it causes a problem for those unwilling to follow it through. The second is Limited Atonement because, first, the term "Limited Atonement" is misleading and suggests Christ didn't atone for sin and, second, the usual argument is "Christ paid for ALL sin and it's your choice whether or not you accept that." Which, in the end, doesn't make sense, but you have to think it through to see why.
I first started thinking through TULIP when started hearing Sproul on Reformed theology. At that time I was convinced, against my will, as it were, by Scripture of the truth of the doctrines. Then I began disliking TULIP when I heard Sproul's explanations of what they actually meant. So I'm fine with Sproul's explanations on them. Here is the difficulty. Communication is all about ... communicating. People have heard of and can remember "TULIP." No one has heard of HGCTG and would remember it. TULIP was adopted as a memory device, and since it is known, it is a useful connection. "You've heard of TULIP, right?" But it's not useful in the sense that it requires re-explanation every time ... on top of the constant misunderstandings. So, I would adopt Sproul's version except for the fact that I would have to re-explain them every time I use them.
Man's responsibility is what Scripture lists as his responsibility -- repent and believe. If we understand that to mean that we can accomplish this on our own, then we would also have to disagree with Paul when he wrote that none of us could boast in our salvation. So the understanding is that GOD enables the ability to repent and believe and WE exercise it when He does.
You asked two questions. Here's the second answer. TULIP is a product of a complaint by the students of Jacobus Arminius, a Dutch reformed minister and professor. (Arminius gives us the "Armenians.") His students had 5 complaints -- called "the Remonstrance" -- about the theology of John Calvin. (I've noted in places that it was ONLY 5 points, which says a LOT about how much agreement there was.) They complained to the Dutch Reformed Church who held a synod -- the Synod of Dordt -- to discuss the complaints. The synod denied the Remonstrance and affirmed the 5 points. So TULIP is the acronym to help remember what the disagreement was about. IT is also a fundamental thought process: Depravity (T) means God alone chooses apart from any merit in us (U). Christ atoned for the sins of the elect (L) and the Spirit always succeeds in calling the elect (I). Ultimately, God will always keep His own (P).
That is interesting. In a comment at your post “God or Man?” (8/4/14), you surmised that most don’t reject the “P” but the “L.” Perhaps you have since learned that both are problematic. Actually, I figured the troublesome one would be either Total Depravity or Unconditional Election, and since some people wrongly see Irresistible Grace as God’s coercion and therefore reject that one, I guess the whole flower can be problematic for many people (especially when the terms are misunderstood)!
I see your point about TULIP being familiar, even if not ideal. I concede that HGCTG is not well-known. Personally, I have adopted Sproul’s labels after reading his book. (I actually need to “convert” the points of TULIP to HGCTG in my head when thinking through or discussing the points.) I am one who would prefer ease in comprehension over a memory device, but I suppose I am atypical. That book was published in 1997, so it’s too bad that HGCTG isn’t more well known by now; perhaps if you started using it in your posts instead of TULIP, it would catch on. :) (I bet a post comparing TULIP with HGCTG would be a helpful and interesting one.)
Just to clarify: I was wondering about man’s responsibility as included in TULIP (rather than all of scripture) (that’s why I wondered about the purpose of TULIP). I only see Total Depravity and Irresistible Grace as requiring man’s involvement--and they would imply that since man’s sinful nature assures hostility towards God, any possible move by us towards faith in Him would require God’s enabling to do so. I do like your summary of TULIP in your final paragraph above.
I appreciate your replies to all my questions!
Just to clarify my comment above: I am not disavowing the doctrines represented by TULIP (or HGCTG, my preference); I do believe these are taught in scripture. I just see them as perhaps too limited, i.e. not providing enough doctrine coverage (or details) to satisfy all the instances of “but what about…?” that come to my mind when I read summaries of them. (That is where the “validity of the ‘anti-Calvinistic’ position” I mentioned might derail my thinking.)
Stan, does TULIP ever seem a bit “skimpy” to you? Or is that the nature of the beast since they are meant only as an outline of sorts? Is there perhaps a more comprehensive version of the points I could consult?
Man's responsibility isn't really included in TULIP. Most people have sense of "Man's responsibility," but far too many don't understand the Sovereignty of God in salvation. I've heard it said that God does 99.9% of our salvation and we do 0.1%. Nice thought ... except it's not biblical. God does the choosing. God supplies regeneration. God supplies faith. God supplies repentance. In fact, I think the real reason that people tend to reject some or all of the doctrines of grace (as they're called) is that they leave us with nothing to point to and say, "I did that." And we don't like that.
No "5 points" can be considered a comprehensive theology. You're right. It is an outline addressing "5 points" of disagreement on the particular doctrine of the salvation of the elect. There are entire books written as a more comprehensive version of these points and, as you've seen on my blog alone, I've spent no small amount of time discussing them myself. They are, however, not a point on which I'm willing to divide with other believers, so it isn't a hill to die on, as it were. I've had my say and only bring it up these days when someone else does. I simply point to Scripture and hope others can draw reasonable conclusions (like, "How can Jesus say, 'I lose none' and still hold that He does?" or "If Jesus paid for all sin for all time for all people, on what just basis would anyone go to Hell?"). They address some common disagreements and offer biblical answers and aren't meant to be anything more.
Leave it to the Dutch to tie anything of importance to tulips!
I agree it is 100% God’s doing; however, until I learned of the doctrines of grace, I had the order of salvation incorrect and believed that my decision to believe in Christ initiated my New Birth and made me a believer, rather than understanding that my placing faith in Him was a product of the grace He granted to my regenerated heart. When one gets the sequence wrong, it produces the conclusion that my actions set this whole thing in motion--thus “I did that,” as you say. Of course, I reject “decisional regeneration” now, but that was the very common mindset under which I was saved in the 1970s. It is a relief to know it all rests on God and not anything I did or didn’t do.
Coincidentally, speaking of Sproul, today Tim Challies linked to Sproul’s Renewing Your Mind podcast series; I missed those on the radio, but decades ago, I watched many episodes of Sproul’s TV series--described as bridging the gap between Sunday School and seminary. It was some good teaching.
That is helpful, and I appreciate it. Clearly, I need to continue to read, study, and learn, since I am not completely comfortable with the current state of my knowledge and understanding. Thanks again for all your replies.
Post a Comment