Tag: doctrine

My Explanation of “The Five Points of Calvinism”

~ Bob Hayton ~ 19 Comments

For a while now, I’ve wanted to do a series on the five points of Calvinism, or at least, in my own words, answer the question: “What is Calvinism?” The wait is over, and my brief (for me) explanation of Calvinism is ready. You can check it out at my Calvinism page, but I want to share it here for your benefit as well.

———————–

This is my own work on the five points here. I recommend John Piper’s clear and concise booklet as the best explanation of Calvinism to those who are ignorant of what Calvinism is and what it teaches. His treatment is respectful and very Biblical, it is available online here.

When it comes to Calvinism I think of it as a description of what happens “behind the scenes” with respect to our salvation. We are confronted with the gospel and asked to believe, we feel conviction and then relief when we trust Christ. Biblically, however, what happened in our heart was more than us independently deciding what we would do with the gospel. I have found that the more we know of what Scripture teaches about the inner workings of salvation, the greater will be our respect and regard for the One who saved us. All of this should tend toward a greater degree of personal worship, a sincere humility, and more glory to God, not a higher degree of pride or party spirit.

T – stands for Total Depravity. This means that every aspect of man is tainted by sin. No one is as evil as they can be, but evil affects every part of our being – mind, will, heart, etc. We do not seek after God, naturally. And apart from God’s initiative, we cannot please God. In fact, we are enslaved by the devil and are lost, blinded to the truth of the gospel and in need of God to mercifully reach down and intervene. (Rom. 3:10-18, 8:7-8; 1 Cor. 2:14; 2 Cor. 4:3-6; 2 Tim. 2:24-26)

U – stands for Unconditional Election. Since we are helpless and totally depraved, we need God to intervene. God doesn’t sit on the sidelines and see who is worthy of being chosen, God chooses. And because of His choice, the “elect” live lives worthy of their calling. Scripture is quite emphatic that neither our belief nor our works fit us for being elected but rather, flow from our election. (Acts 13:48; John 6:44, 6:64-65; 10:26; Eph. 1:3-6; 1 Thess. 1:4-5; 2 Thess. 2:13)

L – stands for Limited Atonement. The choice of “limited atonement” to fit with the TULIP acronym is unfortunate. Actually TULIP doesn’t date back before 1900, and “limited atonement” wasn’t widely used much before then. “Particular redemption” or “definite atonement” give the sense better. Jesus’ death is of infinite value and is sufficient for all but efficient for the elect only. Jesus didn’t just make salvation possible (if “activated” by one’s own contribution of faith). He actually redeemed and saved a people through His death. These are the sheep for whom He died and the church whom He purchased with His blood and the bride whom He died for. He died in some different sense for these than He did for those He knew would reject His atoning sacrifice. He actually bore their real punishment and substituted on their behalf in a real way — He made true propitiation for these. (John 10:11 compared to 10:26; Acts 20:28; Eph. 5:25-27; Titus 2:14; 2 Tim. 1:9; 2 Cor. 5:21; 1 Jn. 4:9-11)

*It should also be noted that there have historically been varying positions regarding this point among Calvinists. All Calvinists hold that Christ died for everyone in a general sense and for the elect in a specific sense (1 Tim. 4:10). Some take this to mean the typical understanding of “L” must be flawed and so they call themselves 4 point Calvinists, others take this as a “multiple intentions” view that in the atonement, God had more than one purpose. The majority today hold that God’s purpose in the atonement was the saving of the elect, other benefits such as common grace extend to all as an extension of what Jesus did on the cross, but the cross-work was not performed on the behalf of all, but only for the elect. (This does not mean we should not preach to all, since we have no way of knowing who the elect are. Hyper-Calvinists are the ones who do not preach the gospel indiscriminately to all, and they do not speak for Calvinists in this extreme and errant practice.)

I – stands for Irresistible Grace. This point does not mean no one can resist God’s grace. People do resist. But for all who have been elected, God will overcome their resistance and graciously save them. This captures the idea of regeneration preceding faith. Calvinists believe faith flows from a heart that has been regenerated. A dead heart can’t believe. Faith is the sign of what happened behind the scenes in the internal workings of the heart. So while it may look like faith causes the new birth from our perspective, it actually is the new birth which evidences itself in faith. (John 1:13, 3:3-8; 1 Cor. 2:14; 1 John 4:7, 5:1 [note Greek tense on both of these = “has been born of God”]; Deut. 30:6; Ez. 36:25-27; Heb. 10:15-16; James 1:18; Phil. 2:13)

P – stands for Perseverance of the Saints. This means more than the common understanding of the eternal security of the believer. God preserves all the elect so that not one of them is finally lost, but He also so works in them that they persevere in their faith. When they fall, they aren’t utterly destroyed, they get back up. They bear fruit and have good works which testify to the genuineness of their professed faith. For those who fail to persevere, we are not the ultimate judge God is. But we should exhort one another daily to “fight the good fight of faith”. When understood properly, this point allows believers to take seriously the many warning passages and “if” statements in Scripture. It also gives us confidence to trust that “He who began a good work in [us], will bring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ”. (Phil. 1:6; 1 Cor. 15:2; John 10:28; 1 Pet. 1:3-5; Heb. 3:12-14, 6:11-12, 10:23-25, 12:14; Col. 1:21-23; Matt. 3:8-10, 7:15-23;)

——————-

I’m open to critique and feedback on this; so please use the comments to let me know what you think. We can have a charitable debate on the topic too, if you’d like.

“Dug Down Deep: Unearthing What I Believe and Why It Matters” by Joshua Harris

~ Bob Hayton ~ 3 Comments

Author: Joshua Harris
Publisher: Waterbrook Multnomah
Format: hardcover
Publication Date: 2010
Pages: 241
ISBN: 9781601421517
Stars: 5 of 5

In today’s world, doctrine and orthodoxy get a bad rap. Many sincere Christians assume studying doctrine is primarily a waste of time. Doctrine usually leads to cold and dead religion, or else it promotes a divisive and bitter spirit that splits churches and wounds people. What really matters is one’s personal relationship with God, and his love for fellow believers.

Joshua Harris would have agreed with this basic sentiment at one time. Dug Down Deep is the story of how he came to realize how important and even life-changing the study of the Bible’s doctrine really can be. Harris invites the reader along as he explains what the basic doctrines (or teachings) of the Bible are and illustrates the impact they have had in his own spiritual walk.

Harris writes in a refreshing, open manner. He lets you into his life even sharing some of the dark secrets of his past. He shares the story of his father Gregg’s conversion to Christ, as well as his own journey from a seeker-sensitive church youth group to being pastoral intern to C.J. Mahaney.

The book’s readability helps it to communicate so effectively when Harris explains such doctrines as the sovereignty of God, sinfulness of man, substitutionary atonement, and the gospel of God’s grace. It is the books focus on grace which most dramatically stands out. This is what drew Harris to the joy of knowing Bible doctrine, and it is worth quoting him at some length on this point.

…it was this message of the gospel of grace for which C.J. Reserved his greatest passion. Most preachers and zealous Christians I knew got fired up over what we needed to do for God. But C.J.’s greatest passion was reserved for exulting in what God had done for us. He loved to preach about the Cross and how Christ died in our place, as our substitute.

For someone who had practically been born into church, I found this surprisingly new. The deeper I delved into Christian doctrine, the more I saw that the good news of salvation by grace alone in Jesus, who died for sin””the gospel””was the main message of the whole Bible.

I suppose it might seem completely obvious that this is the center of the Christian faith, and yet it felt new to me. I began to see orthodoxy as the treasuring of the truths that point to Jesus and his saving work. Doctrine was the living story of what Jesus did for us and what it means…. (pg. 27)

As you can see, Harris’ own story provides the perfect backdrop for illustrating how important it is to learn Bible doctrine. Harris argues that we need to dig down deep in order to build our lives on the rock of the solid Biblical teaching of Christ.

This book will introduce the young Christian to the glory of orthodox Christian doctrine. It will also encourage those who do know doctrine, to aim for a humble orthodoxy and see how such knowledge should fuel love and service for others. Dug Down Deep will be an easy read for anyone, but it packs a punch. It will challenge you to make sure you are building on a sure foundation. I recommend this book highly.

Joshua Harris is senior pastor of Covenant Life in Gaithersburg, Maryland, which belongs to the Sovereign Grace network of churches. A gifted speaker with a passion for making theological truth easy to understand, Joshua is perhaps best known for his runaway bestseller, I Kissed Dating Goodbye, which he wrote at the age of twenty-one. His later books include Boy Meets Girl, Sex Is Not the Problem (Lust Is), and Stop Dating the Chruch. The founder of the NEXT conferences for young adults, Joshua is committed to seeing the gospel transferred to a new generation of Christians. He and his wife, Shannon, have three children.
Disclaimer: this book was provided by the publisher for review. The reviewer was under no obligation to provide a positive review.

This book is available for purchase at the following sites: Amazon.com or direct from Waterbrook Multnomah.

A 21st Century Theological Taxonomy

~ Bob Hayton ~ 8 Comments

The fundamentalist blog Sharper Iron is running a series of posts by Dr. Jeff Straub of Central Baptist Theological Seminary (Minneapolis) on the future of fundamentalism. The series is entitled “The Fundamentalist Challenge for the 21st Century: Do We Have a Future?”. The first post is quite good.

The post links to a chart describing the different groups within fundamentalism. The chart goes on to describe a few groups within evangelicalism as well. I’m always impressed by such charts, and the word “taxonomy” just sounds so smart. No, actually, it really does help, especially for those who have changed from one category to another (as I have).

I am in general agreement with the chart as a whole, although there will probably be exceptions to the rule, and a few people listed that don’t fit exactly where they are listed on the chart. I think it’s a helpful chart all in all, and wanted to point you to it.

Click here to find the chart (you can also save it, as it is a .pdf file).

The chart splits Fundamentalism up into 3 categories: Hyper Fundamentalism, Historic Fundamentalism, and New Image Fundamentalism. Evangelicalism also finds itself a tripartite being: Evangelical Right, Broad Evangelicalism, and Evangelical Left. Then there’s Neo-orthodoxy and Radical Non-orthodoxy. Currently I find myself at times within the Evangelical Right category and at times in the New Image Fundamentalism category.

Let me know what you think, and be sure to read the next parts of Straub’s assessment of fundamentalism.

“The Erosion of Inerrancy in Evangelicalism” by G.K. Beale

~ Bob Hayton

Author: G.K. Beale
Publisher: Crossway
Format: Softcover
Publication Date: 2008
Pages: 304
ISBN: 9781433502033
Stars: 4 of 5

In recent years, Evangelicalism has seen a number of challenges to the doctrine of the inerrancy of Scripture. Chief among these have been new insights into the cultural and historical background of the Old Testament provided by newly found ancient Near Eastern sources (ANE for short). A recent turmoil was raised by a professor at Westminster Theological Seminary named Peter Enns who published a controversial book Inspiration and Incarnation. Eventually he was deemed to have violated the Westminster Confession of Faith in his views and was removed from his teaching post at Westminster.

In scholarly journals, G.K. Beale responded to Enns’ book and open questioning of the popular understanding of biblical inerrancy. Enns and Beale responded back and forth to each other in a series of journal articles, which in a slightly emended form make up the first four chapters of this book. I’m glad that G.K. Beale chose to put the discussion in a book for a wider Evangelical audience, as he has done us all a great favor. His book, The Erosion of Inerrancy in Evangelicalism: Responding to New Challenges to Biblical Authority addresses this issue head on and offers a confessionally faithful model of approaching ANE parallels to Scripture.

I must admit that when I began this book, I was skeptical of Beale’s position and open to what Enns had to say. By the end of the book, I realized that Enns had indeed erred, and that Beale represented a careful scholarly approach worthy of consideration. Still, the objection could be raised that Beale is making a mountain out of a molehill and is just interested in muddying Enns’ image, even as he threatens the scholarly Evangelical community with the same if they dare tip the sacred inerrancy cow. Such is not the case however. Let me allow Beale to explain his rationale for the book:

… most of the problems that [Enns] poses are not that hard to solve, though he gives the impression that they are difficult to square with a traditional view of inerrancy. Indeed, this is partly why I felt a burden to write the review (of Enns’ book) that I did. Instead of helping people in the church gain confidence in their Bibles, Enns’s book will likely shake that confidence””I think unnecessarily so. (pg. 66-67)

After laying out the issues, Beale jumps right in to the back and forth between Peter Enns and himself. He splits the discussion into two topics: recent OT studies’ developments and the study of the Old Testament in the New. For each he gives his rejoinders to Enns and Enns’ responses. While at times the back and forth leaves the typical reader dazed and confused (at times one feels like he’s looking over the various scholars’ shoulders or that the discussion is moving on too quickly to follow), key issues and main points are driven home through these first four chapters. Differing approaches to ANE myths and their implications for Genesis, and second Temple Judaistic hermeneutical principles and their bearing on our understanding of the New Testament are fleshed out.

After the various approaches are displayed through the back and forth of chapters 1-4, the book moves on to the unity of Isaiah as a case study. Will we trust the Bible’s witness to itself when it comes to Isaiah’s unity, or move with the scholarly winds and deny that which Jesus and the apostles appeared to assume? While Beale is a NT scholar, he handles the Isaiah question capably, referring to recent scholarly evangelical assessments on this point.

Beale then provides a fascinating discussion of Gen. 1 and a biblical cosmology model in the form of the universe as God’s temple. In this section, Beale really shines as he develops a compelling case for the tabernacle, Temple and indeed Eden and the universe as a whole as all being models of God’s true cosmic temple. This applies to the book in general because to understand Gen. 1-2 as a temple cosmology allows one to assimilate insights from ANE studies without defaulting to teaching that the early chapters of Genesis are intended to be taken as a myth.

Two appendices are also provided. One is a rather detailed discussion of postmodernism, epistemology and the like. The second is an exposition of the “Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy.”

This book is not for the average reader. Beale develops a case and brings you into the world of Biblical scholarship today. He explains how one can maintain a high view of Scripture and assimilate insights from scholarship successfully. He also warns of the dangers of forsaking inerrancy. I learned a ton in reading this book, but the part I enjoyed the most was when Beale left polemics aside and focused on a positive development of his cosmic temple idea concerning Gen. 1-2. Beale has written an entire book on that subject (The Temple and the Church’s Mission: A Biblical Theology of the Dwelling Place of God), and I’m interested in picking it up soon.

I recommend this book, but have to admit it was put together in a piecemeal fashion. Still it has great value and needs to be read by anyone interested in OT scholarship.

Disclaimer: this book was provided by the publisher for review. The reviewer was under no obligation to provide a positive review.

This book is available for purchase at the following sites: Westminster Bookstore, Amazon.com, or direct from Crossway.

Those Five New Points of Calvinism

~ Bob Hayton ~ 9 Comments

Almost everyone reading my blog is familiar with the acrostic TULIP as standing for the five points of Calvinism. Probably most of you know what each point stands for: Total Depravity, Unconditional Election, Limited Atonement, Irresistible Grace, Perseverance of the Saints. Then the number goes down as to who knows what each point means. I would venture to guess that there would be disagreement over what people think “L” should mean, or what “T”, “I” or “P” actually imply.

If you’ve read any Calvinist literature, you have seen a recasting of the points. Some turn it from TULIP into ROSES (Timothy George), others like my former pastor John Piper, choose to consider the points in a thematic order rather than their order in the word TULIP. Piper’s pamphlet on the points spells the Calvinist flower: TILUP. I’ve seen books and essays advocate “efficacious grace” or “particular redemption” as opposed the the TULIP title of the point in question.

What very few of you who read this blog know, and what I just learned, is that the acronym TULIP is a very recent development. It apparently hails from the early 20th Century, first appearing in Lorraine Boettner’s 1932 book, The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination. I just finished reading an article by Ken Stewart [pdf] which traces the development of TULIP [HT: Dave Doran]. Stewart rummages through the literary remains of the 18th and 19th Centuries in a vain attempt to find any use of our flowery acronym. He finds many treatments of Calvinism in the first half of the 20th Century totally bereft of any mention of TULIP as well. Stewart cites Roger Nicole as one who also noted the newness of the TULIP scheme. From his preface of the 40th anniversary edition of Steele and Thomas’ Five Points of Calvinism, Nicole states: “Ever since the appearance of Loraine Boettner’s magisterial The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination it has been customary to refer to the five points according to the acrostic TULIP.”

A couple months back, Justin Taylor entertained this same theme on his blog, and in the comments proof of the use of TULIP was given in a 1913 article of the New Outlook, which cites a Dr. Cleland McAffee as using the term as a mnemonic device in his lectures back in 1905. So that is apparently the earliest documented use of the TULIP acronym found to date.

Stewart’s piece is well worth the read, as he concludes with a call for Calvinism to be more irenic and pleasing in its tone, especially when interacting with the wider Christian church. So I guess true Calvinism, isn’t all about fives. I for one, would be glad to let the TULIP wither. I love the heart of Calvinism, but a strict adherence to five points that aren’t adequately explained is not helpful. This might be a good time for all of us to go read the original Five Points in their entirety– I‘m referring to the Canons of Dort, of course.

UPDATE: I forgot to include the link to Stewart’s article initially. Here is the link (it’s a pdf file).