Tiptoeing Through the TULIPS -- Part 7 -- Stepping on TULIPS

I suppose if you have been reading this series you will probably gather by now that I am not a Calvinist. In fact over the years i have earned several nicknames -- Sir_Edward -- of the order of the Anti-Calvinists, Calvinist Basher, Calvinists Bane, etc. etc. I gladly accept them all. Most of them were given to by Calvinists in the form of name calling but I have made them badges of honor. The question is why I am so against this doctrine. I have given many of the Scriptural problems I have with this doctrine in this series, but I will admit it is much more personal than that.

1. The Image It Creates of God is Diabolical: In Calvinism we have a God who predestines people to hell and does so without cause. God is not only unjust in Calvinism, he is also one mean SOB. The problem of God in relation to evil is difficult enough when talking about hell but now we have a God who wilfully throws people into it and offers them no chance of redemption. I find this not only Biblically unsatisfactory but what image of God is this where we can say God is a loving God who is 'not willing that any should perish.' This doctrine makes such an idea a fantasy.

2. It is a System That Leads to Hermeneutical Slavery: Once a person accepts this system it forever dominates their thinking. Kind of like the 'dark side'. ;-) Even if you present a verse that directly contradicts a tenet of Calvinist thought they will find a way around it to come with a way to save it. See common interpretations of 1 Timothy 2:4.

3. The Image of Man It Creates is as Puppet Not Person. In the end each person has no real value. In fact Calvinism creates a group of people who are valuable to God and others who are not. You cannot say a person is valuable to God if first he predestines them to hell and then sends them there without any choice or interaction on their part. The elect on the other hand are extremely valuable to God for some reason but no reason you can put your finger on.

4. It's Fruits: a) Fatalism -- people just give up to the fate of God's justice. There is ultimate way to preach personal responsibility when everything you are is because God made you do it and be it. This get difficult to explain how God is good when he is responsible for people for being the evil they are -- Hitler comes to mind. b) Murder -- I know of at least three stories where people believed they were elect to damnation and then killed themselves because of it. c) False security of salvation -- With the ultimate fruits of POTS and OSAS it is not surprising the one thing I here every so often is -- 'I prayed at the altar so now I am saved -- NO MATTER WHAT I DO.' Calvinists say these people are taught poorly, but the truth is they are just arriving at destinations that are logical conclusions.

Yep, for these reasons and all the Biblical ones I cannot embrace Calvinism. In fact I think the doctrine is very bad indeed.

Finis

Tiptoeing Through the TULIPs -- Part 6 -- P -- Perserverance of the Saints or Nothing Can Stop Us Now.

Perseverance of the Saints (POTS) is a doctrine I would probably like to believe in except for one thing -- There is at least one entire book of the Bible against it -- Hebrews.

POTS basically states that those who God gives his grace to through U, L and I will automatically Persevere and will not be lost no matter what. The saint automatically perseveres even if he lives a sinful lifestyle or really has no relationship with God. Come to Think of it I remember Romans 6 has something to say about that as well.

POTS combined with Irresistible Grace leads to one of the most devilish doctrines of all time -- Once Saved Always Saved (OSAS). If grace can not be resisted and the saints cannot lose their salvation then it seems the most logical conclusion. I know there are some branches of Baptist and Reformed Thinking that discard I and P for a form of freewill defense but honestly I think Calvin is right: If T.U.L. is true than I and P are inevitable. But then again, I think Calvin was completely bonkers about the whole thing.

Getting Back to Hebrews and POTS. Two Problems 1) The entire book of Hebrews is written to Jews who have come out of Judaism for the sole purpose of convincing them to stay in Christianity and not turn back to Judaism because the New Covenant with Christ is better than the Old. If there is no real danger of losing ones salvation as POTS claims, then why would the writer of Hebrews be worried about this happening in the first place? 2) Hebrews 6:4-6 -- For in the case of those who have once been enlightened and have tasted of the heavenly gift and have been made partakers of the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come, and then have fallen away, it is impossible to renew them again to repentance, since they again crucify to themselves the Son of God and put Him to open shame. Now this is odd isn't it -- if it is not possible to lose ones salvation then why talk this way?

Now I know that those who hold to POTS and OSAS say that this paragraph does not describe a person who is saved, but then that also has problems 1) If they are not really saved, then what exactly are they falling away from? It is hard to fall from something you never had to begin with. 2) If this verse were written about anything else but falling away and we saw this verse: For in the case of those who have once been enlightened and have tasted of the heavenly gift and have been made partakers of the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come, What would we say it describes then? If this does not describe salvation,what then does it describe?

Suppose it read instead:For in the case of those who have once been enlightened and have tasted of the heavenly gift and have been made partakers of the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come, to be deceived (change for example purposes only).

You could bet then people would be saying that those who are saved cannot be deceived. But because it talks about falling away from these things; it cannot be salvation because to the POTS Believer salvation cannot be flalen away from. It would directly contradict his doctrine. This is probably one of the greatest cases of eisegesis (reading what we want to be in Scripture) in the modern/port modern world today. This is what happens when a doctrine trumps a plain reading of Scripture.

Nope. Don't See POTS or OSAS as true. If fact I have rejected the whole thing and next week I am going to tell you why.

Next: Stepping on TULIPs -- Why I reject Calvinism.

Tiptoeing Through the TULIPs -- Part 5 -- I -- Irresistable Grace or God the Spiritual Rapist

Oh boy, Whenever I write on this topic I get 'fan' mail. One major problem is that not all Calvinist go this far, but to be blunt if T,U and L are true then I is inevitable. You can dance around it but in the end God's grace is irresistible if election is unconditional. If God has elected you to salvation you are forced to accept his grace.

The doctrine of irresistible grace states basically this: that once God has decided to give his grace to you (See unconditional election) you cannot resist it and you will become saved. Like it or not.

Between this and P -- Perseverance Of The Saints (which I will deal with next week) you get the basis for Once Saved Always Saved (OSAS). But more on that next week.

My largest problem with this is the image it creates of God that is highly unbiblical.

1) God only presents his grace to the elect. I find a universality in the Scripture of who gets loved by God -- Everyone. If every person is loved by God then why would he only make grace irresistible to those who he has made elect.
2) Faith coming exclusively from God. God only gives faith that saves to those he chooses. The fact remains that when our faith is talked about, it is always given the possessive to us. The Bible never describes faith as God's through us, but ours -- 'your faith' is always the idea. "Your faith has made you whole." etc., etc.
3) Throughout the Old Testament God's people are repeatedly described by God as being rebellious, but what difference would it make if God's grace is irresistible? None. Here we have God going on and on through the prophets calling his people back to him if such a call was irresistible in the first place. God does not work this way in the whole counsel of God.

To further my point, I would like to use an analogy that is common is Scripture. Marriage. The image of marriage is often used of God and his people. Now if this doctrine is true this is how covenant works with God. God proposes the covenant of marriage to you. You not only must say yes but you cannot help but say yes. You have been drugged by god so that you cannot help but say yes. Once you have said yes, God forces himself upon you in relationship and intimacy with him. This would be like me proposing marriage to my wife and then telling her she cannot help but say yes. In fact I am going to answer for her and say yes by taking over her mind and will to make her. Once we are married, I take her home with me and she must do what ever I will. She cannot refuse me for I keep her drugged so she never can resist anything I want to do. There is no love here in such a relationship -- constant spiritual rape is more like it.

Paula and others pay attention here.

I think salvation works more on the line of what engagement and marriage is supposed to be like: When I asked my wife to marry me I waited for her response. I CHOSE Her but she had to say 'yes'. Her saying 'yes' is nothing she did to earn my love, it is simply an acceptance of my offer and gift. Once yes was said did that mean my wife suddenly lost her will and she had nothing to say about how she and i walked in relationship? I think not. Such covenant relationships require give and take on both sides. If she goes out and fools around and no longer want to be married to me -- divorce takes place the covenant is broken.

In the same way God chose me and offered me his salvation but I still had to say yes. To say yes I must believe in Christ's resurrection and confess His Lordship over my life. (Romans 10:9-10) Was I doing 'a work' by doing this? No, all I did was accept an offered gift. Once done, I have said yes, but that does not mean the covenant does not have to be maintained. If I ever stop believing in the resurrection of Christ or, by my life, no longer confess the Lordship of Christ -- the covenant is broken. Conditions exist in this covenant and they are to be maintained or the covenant is gone. Read Deuteronomy for an example of this idea between God and his people.

Next: P - Perseverance of the Saint or Nothing Can Stop Us Now.

Tiptoeing Through the TULIPs -- Part 4 -- L -- Limited Atonement or Jesus' Blood Can Only Do So Much

Now, in Calvinism, the central core of the system is Total Depravity and Unconditional Election. Once a person accepts these the remaining things of TULIP just follow.

Limited Atonement states that because election is unconditional then Jesus only died for the elect. Some versions state that Jesus' sacrifice only applied to the elect, but either way, atonement is limited to the elect.

I have two objections to this
1) The first is that this is patently Unbiblical -- 1 John 2:2 -- "and He Himself is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world." John basically states that Jesus blood and sacrifice is a propitiation for every sin committed; not just but Christians but the whole world. There are other verses like this but only one is necessary.

2) Doesn't this limit the power of Christ's blood? Seems to. It means that Christ's power over sin only extends to those who are the elect. After that Jesus' blood has no power.

Now as I do not accept T or U anyway, it does not follow for me that atonement is limited but applied to anyone who accepts it by faith.

Next: I -- Irresistible Grace or God the Spiritual Rapist

Tiptoeing Through the TULIPs -- Part 3 -- U -- Unconditional Election and God the Devil

Unconditional Election in my mind is the most heinous of the Tulips we are tiptoeing through because is creates an interesting an unbiblical view of God. When Wesley talked of it it said that it created a portrait of God that made God the devil. I agree.

The doctrine of unconditional election states that a person is predestined to heaven or hell before they are ever born. In short, God decided who will be with him in heaven or hell before they are even created. In short we have picture of God who is sitting on a throne who is throwing people right and left into heaven or hell before they have done anything. My problems with this are enormous.

1) How is God just if he does this? The defense I have heard is that God's justice is different than ours, but this is not so. God tells us what justice is and then declares himself many times to be its definition that we should follow and that we can know justice by knowing him.

2) Biblically this hard to support as every story that is told about final judgment tells us that people are judged by their actions as well as whether or not they possess faith in Christ. The names being blotted out of the book of life in Revelation is a particularly telling comment, overcoming to the end, and the words in Romans speaking of 'whosoever will' are expressions that cover the Bible with one idea -- there is a choice to be made by us that affects our salvation. it is a relationship entered into by covenant of BOTH parties including us.

The fact is that Calvin was trying to make God super sovereign and in so doing he robbed God of justice. He has turned the loving God into the unmerciful devil.

Some of the fruit I have seen of this doctrine are telling: One man I heard of burned himself to death because he believed that he was predestined to hell and he wanted to shorten the trip. Probably the most heinous thing it does is it justifies an antinomian attitude. Such a doctrine does more to fuel the 'let us sin that grace abound idea than any other. Calvinists I have talked to say this is not the case but ultimately does it matter what you do as a Christian. If you live righteously you go to heaven if your predestined to heaven, but even if you don't you are still predestined to heaven your going even if you sleep around or are a drunkard, etc. People living in sin openly because of a lack of fear of justice of God because you see they are predestined to heaven or Once Saved Always Saved doctrines that come from it abound.

In then end, I am pretty sure this is not what the Bible teaches. It teaches to enter into a walk with through Christ by covenanting with him through his blood. To continue in that walk overcoming sin and situation through the Holy Spirit and to continue to the end. Unconditional election makes salvation a one shot wonder that really ultimately has no bearing in how we live our life.

Next: L -- Limited Atonement or Jesus' Blood Only Has So Much Power

Tiptoeing Through the TULIPs -- Part 2 -- T -- Total Depravity and Other Myths

I remember when I told a friend that I did not believe in total depravity and that I felt the doctrine was unbiblical. His response was pretty typical -- 'Ed I know you and your past -- you were totally depraved'. Here is the thing, do we base our beliefs about God and man on our experiences as human beings or on the teachings found in Scriptures? The Scriptures I would hope. Then why is it then that the chief defense for this doctrine I hear is based on human experience? Odd.

OK, a little lesson in logic before we begin. Universals of either type are very difficult to prove. When you say 'All preachers are mortal' or 'No preachers are mortal' there is a universality to both. The first is positive; the second is negative. Of the two, the negative is the the most easiest to disprove. In ALL statements you may have to search a while. But all you would have to do in the case above is find one immortal preacher and the case is closed. In NO statements all you have to do is find is one example of an exception and the case is closed. One mortal preacher and the game is over. That is why a statement such as -- there is no God is difficult to both prove and maintain. All the theist has to do is prove is one proof for God's existence and the argument fails and to prove it, the atheist has to pretty much say he is looked in every corner of any place that exists to show God does not exist.

Total Depravity states: There is NO action by man that is not marked by sin. This is actually the weakest type of argument to make. All you have to do is show a single example of an action taken by a man that is declared to be righteous by God and the argument is gone.

First thing --define sin. Total Depravity proponents define sin as 'missing the mark' using etymology to get the definition. The problem is that the Bible itself gives definitions of sin and they never use -- 'missing the mark.' If sin is anything that is not flawlessly perfect then total depravity is true, maybe. The problem is that using etymology -- looking up the original meaning of a word -- is not helpful. What matters is what the word means when the author penned it. In all case of the writers of Scripture from Moses to John the Apostle the definition is pretty much the same: Sin is a violation or disobedience to the commands of God. With Biblical definition in hand, lets look to see if in the Bible (best source) or in life (support source) where people might not be in violation of the commands of God and thus not be totally depraved.

1) People in the Bible declared righteous by God. There are many of these but the most notable example is Job to make my point. "Through all this Job did not sin nor did he blame God." Boy, either definition you use, total depravity takes a nasty knock. "Through all this Job did not miss the mark or blame God" or 'Through all this Job did not violate a command of God ...". The point is this, once you have the Scriptures saying there was no sin to a person's actions, the doctrine that nothing we do is not touched by sin becomes difficult to maintain. There are many more of these if you read Scripture. Try Luke 1:5-6: 'In the days of Herod, king of Judea, there was a priest named Zacharias, of the division of Abijah; and he had a wife from the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elizabeth. They were both righteous in the sight of God, walking blamelessly in all the commandments and requirements of the Lord.

2) In life, do you really want to God through every action a person could possible take and then say what is sinful about it. A person jumps in a lake and saves a person from drowning -- where is the sin? All I have to do is show one action taken by anyone that does not violate a command of God or actually upholds a command and BANG -- no total depravity.

This is not to say that I do not believe all people are sinners. "All have sinned" is a Biblical statement. The only thing required to make this true however is that each person sin once. It is a Universal Positive Statement logically. Once a person has violated the law of God even a single time they qualify and need a Savior. Total Depravity not required.

Nor will I say that I do not believe that people become depraved -- Romans 1 declares and shows a decent into depravity. The one thing though I can say is that how does one descend to a lower point of depravity as Romans 1 indicates if you are already at the bottom as Total Depravity indicates? Strange, huh? My point is we start as sinners and then as we continue to sin we become depraved.

For me, the more I thought about it, the doctrine of total depravity is overly simplistic in describing the condition of mankind in relationship to God. It also is extremely negative in its assessment of the human condition; where I don't think even God has such a view of man or he would have destroyed us in the flood and been done with it. I just find it Scripturally and intellectually unsatisfying. It is not the worst letter in TULIP but in the end I find it wanting and I reject it.

Next: U -- Unconditional Election and God the Devil.

Tiptoeing Through the TULIPs -- Part 1 -- The Calvinistic Manifesto

My thought for Tuesdays is to discuss theology in some way. To start off with I decided that I would tackle something that is by now for me an old struggle. I spent many years and a lot of forum time debating Calvinists in my early days on the Internet. In the end I rejected the whole bundle of tulips and left it as a failed system. Failed because it has no Biblical support; it stands as a system and a system alone. It is a manifesto of sorts and a system to hang Scripture on but sometimes the Scriptures just don't stay hung and then there are some parts of the Bible you just can't stick of TULIP at all -- they contradict it.

T -- Total Depravity
U -- Unconditional Election
L -- Limited Atonement
I -- Irresistible Grace
P -- Perseverance of the Saints

It is a really easy way to remember the five points of Calvinist thought. I will go through each on in this series, lay it out for you and then debunk it. I have never had much uses for theological systems -- what do you do if they break down or are shown to be Biblically in error? I have even less use for this one and over the next month and a half I will tell you why.

Next: T -- Total Depravity and Other Myths.