Calvinism Defended:
The "Formulation" of TULIP
By
This is the first section of the e-mail exchange I had with Bill, an individual who objected against Calvinism. Click here to go back to the contents, or here to go to the full 88 page exchange.
My First E-mail: …I know what you mean when you say, “if what you say is true…,” I just wanted to state in no uncertain terms that I am trying to accurately state what the Bible teaches regarding these matters. In other words, I’m not merely offering my opinion. I think you would agree that what I have to say, divorced from the infallible Truth of God and His Word is, let’s say…totally irrelevant. Obviously, the task of faithfully teaching what God Himself says about any matter is a task that is not to be taken lightly, for we are handling the very Word of God, and with regard to these issues, we are stating things that have a direct bearing on the very nature of God Himself…
Bills Response: Yes, you understood what I was saying. If you are accurately stating what the Bible says, why wasn’t Calvinism formulated solely by quoting scripture:
· Total Depravity
Unconditional
Election
Limited
Atonement
· Irresistible Grace
Preservation
of the Saints
My
Response: First,
to say that Calvinism was “formulated” is a bit of a
mischaracterization.
The Reformers were attempting to “reform” the church (Roman Catholic)
because of their commitment to the truth of the Bible, hence, the formal cause
of the Reformation, Sola Scriptura, which holds that the Word of God is the sole
infallible rule and guide for faith and practice (a principle which you also
seem to find quite acceptable).
The Reformers appealed first and foremost to Scripture, provided exegesis
of key texts, and stated in no uncertain terms what precisely the Gospel was
based on the exegesis of Scripture, not human wisdom, philosophical speculation,
or the decisions of Councils from the past.
Their teaching was derived from the infallible and
inerrant Word of God, and, I believe that they demonstrated that their teaching
concerning these matters were in fact the orthodox Christian view.
While they rested their case on Scripture, they also demonstrated that their understanding wasn’t
something new in the history of the church, but had in fact been the basic understanding of the church (East and
West) throughout
the ages, with Augustine of course being the key church father that they
referenced, since he more than any other spoke most clearly to the issues at
hand (by the way, they had much to say in disagreement with Augustine as well,
e.g., they did not accept his view on the nature of the church, the nature of
the sacraments, etc. You will also note that East and West were still united at
the time of Augustine).
While some might criticize them for doing this, we must again recognize
the historical setting and culture in which they lived, and to whom and what it
was they were reacting to. If one
was going to try to reform the Roman Church, they certainly could not expect to
be very successful if they completely ignored what any and all of the church
fathers said prior to that point. Instead
of ignoring the past, they were able to use Augustine, the most respected
teacher of at least the Roman church at that time (along with Aquinas), against
Rome. Their method went something
like this: “The Bible plainly
teaches “X,” but you reject that because I am the one saying that it teaches
“X.” Okay, fine.
Not only do I maintain that it teaches “X,” but so did this teacher,
whom you consider to be one of the greatest teachers in the church, and whom the
church counsel (Counsel of Orange) actually sided with when these similar issues
were a point of controversy during Augustine’s time.”
In doing all of this, they demonstrated that their position is drawn from
and based on Scripture alone, and they (and obviously all those who follow in
their train), believe that they are correct in what the Bible teaches concerning
these matters. That being the case,
from their perspective, their position is merely the position of Jesus, Paul,
and the entire Bible. They then
demonstrated that their analysis has strong support in church history.
Thus, if you read Luther’s The Bondage of the Will, and
Calvin’s Institutes of the Christian Religion, you will discover that
they are not merely stating things “willy-nilly,” but are dealing with one
Biblical text after another in making their point, as well as showing how their
conclusions were indeed in accord with biblical Christianity through the
centuries.
Secondly, as I believe I stated in my article that you read, if someone
were to ask Calvin about “Calvinism” and the so-called “Five points of
Calvinism,” Calvin would have looked at them, I’m sure, a bit confused.
That’s because the so-called Five Points were not articulated in that
manner until years after his death. It
was at the Synod of Dordt (1618 AD), in response
to the Five Articles of Remonstrance, that the Reformed Church
responded, and that response become known as TULIP, not because the phrase
“TULIP” is found in the Bible, but because this simple little acronym could
be used by folks as a means to remember the clear difference and teaching of the
Reformed Church and the Arminians on what the Bible teaches with regard to the
nature of man (T), God’s sovereignty in salvation (U), Christ’s perfect work
on the cross (L), the Holy Spirit’s perfect and omnipotent power in bringing
spiritually dead sinners to spiritual life (I), and God’s preserving His
people until the very end, for Jesus is both the author and the finisher of our
faith (P).
As for why the word
“tulip;” from what I understand there is an interesting anecdote that it just so happens that the most
common flower in the Netherlands (where the Remonstrant controversy raged)
is…the tulip. Anyway, the point is that what we have
then is a response by
the Reformed church against the five articles of remonstrance.
Had it not been for the five articles of the Remonstrance (Arminians),
there never would have been “TULIP” in the sense that we have it today
(hence, your objection later that Manicheans actually taught these things, using
the same acronym “TULIP” is simply inaccurate).
Also, when you ask why they did not just quote Scripture in making their
case, I’m sorry Bill, but either you have never read the Reformers, or you
have simply ignored what was being said due to your evident bias against their teaching.
If you pick up a copy of Calvin’s Institutes, for example, and read
what he wrote, you will find one Scriptural reference after another (not to
mention exposition). Then, if you
turn to the back to Scripture index, you will find the mountain of biblical
texts that are referenced, drawn from every book of the Bible except Esther
(I’m sure we can excuse Calvin here, since, after all, not even Jesus referred
to Esther). It is truly amazing to see the full breadth and scope of Calvin’s
appeal to Scripture. In Luther’s
relatively small book, The Bondage of Will, he references approximately
386 different passages from 41 books of the Bible.
As for me, I am not a “Calvinist” because Calvin taught something.
As a matter of fact, I had never read one word by Calvin before becoming
a “Calvinist.” I became a
Calvinist because I was convinced that the testimony of Scripture teaches that
man is dead in his trespasses and sin (Eph 2:1) and because of this deadness in
sin, there is none righteous, no not one, there is none who understands; there
is none who seeks after God (Rom 3:10-11), and as such the natural man does not
receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, nor can he (that is,
he is not able) to know them because they are spiritually discerned (1 Cor
2:14). Hence, no one can
come to Christ (i.e., no one is able, John 6:44)), it is only those to whom it
has been granted and whom the Spirit has enabled (John 6:44; 65)--that is, it is
all those that the Father has given to Christ—all those chosen in Christ
before the foundation of the world (Eph 1:4)-- that come to Christ (John 6:37),
and it is these alone that Christ laid down His life for (Matt 1:21; John 10:11,
15), and became for them wisdom,
righteousness, sanctification, and redemption (1 Cor 1:30), and all those chosen
in Christ from before the foundation in the world will persevere to the end,
because He is the author and finisher of their faith (Heb 12:2), and He gives
His sheep eternal life, and they shall never perish, because He who began the
good work in them will complete it the end (Phil 1:6).
You can read more of my testimony on why I am a Calvinist at http://www.geocities.com/johnandursula/whycalvinist.
In conclusion of this point, your comment, Bill, of “why wasn’t Calvinism formulated solely by
quoting scripture,”
is incorrect, both from a historical perspective, and a theological perspective.
I hope that what I have stated clears up that matter at least in your
thinking, and hopefully just interaction with the Scriptural texts would take
place. As for the texts, quite
honestly I simply have not found plausible counter-exegesis of the texts in
question that is able to both refute the exegetical arguments of the Reformers
as it pertains to these matters, and then establishes the non-Reformed
understanding of those texts.
I am a Calvinist because I believe that the Scripture teaches what I briefly noted above, and for me, Luther’s words bode well: “Unless I am convinced by Sacred Scripture or by evident reason, I cannot recant. For my conscience is held captive by the Word of God and to act against conscience is neither right nor safe...” By the way, I’m sure Luther’s words bode well for you as well, since you made your appeal to Scripture. See, there’s at least 1 thing about Luther and the Reformers that you agree with and may actually like. J