Tag: Regeneration

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.

Calvinism: A Man-Made Philosophy??

~ fundyreformed ~ 36 Comments

Recently in the comments of an earlier post of mine “Regeneration, Reception, and Faith“, the charge has again been made that Calvinism is a man-made philosophy.

Many of the Calvinist faithful are rolling their eyes and muttering “not again!” Yes, again.

I’m sure we’ll continue to hear this charge, and so I think it is worth addressing in a post. Hence I’m breaking my blog-silence and giving you a substantive post for a change!

Before I begin, let me say I have nothing against C. Hartline. She levied the charge (you can see the relevant exchange by clicking here and scrolling all the way down until you see comments from October 2007–about the last 4 or 5 comments) and I do plan on addressing many of her specific comments. But I will keep that in the comments of the post in question.

Here I hope to address the larger issue: the common claim that Calvinism is a man-made philosophy. So let’s begin.

The Anatomy of the Charge

Now I will attempt to be fair to the non-Calvinist side in this post. But it should be obvious that saying Calvinism is a “man-made philosophy” is designed to be a pretty strong blow to our side. The charge insinuates that we don’t follow the Bible, but man. And to be frank, the charge is often hollow: there is little or no proof. It’s just thrown out there as fact, and it is designed to predispose people to not trust Calvinism. That is called “poisoning the well”.

When a proof is given for this assertion, often it is given “pit bull style“. I’m referring to “verse pitting“. I suppose a whole post could be devoted to this one thought, but let me try to explain. “Verse pitting” involves throwing proof texts at someone in a debate. I’m not saying whether context is considered or not, quantity is the issue. Rather than dealing with each text brought up for either side, one side just dodges the bullets and keeps firing yet another proof text. If one text gets explained away, fine, they reach for another. And they feel no compulsion to deal with texts which might contradict their side, because after all their verses need answering too. Jehovah’s Witnesses are master of this technique, by the way.

What’s wrong with this approach is that Scripture is belittled. Based on Scripture’s testimony to itself, we would expect all of Scripture to harmonize and agree. Rather than compiling a list of texts that prove our side and contradict the opposing side’s texts, we should seek to harmonize all the texts and really do honest exegesis.

The Myth of Neutrality

Moving beyond the logic of the charge itself, we must consider the claim to neutrality. Non-Calvinists who levy this charge turn around and set up their own man-made philosophy in the place of Calvinism. You can say “it’s just plain Bible” until you’re blue in the face, but that doesn’t make your interpretation obviously neutral. All of us are men, and all of us are trying to fit together verses and passages from all over the Bible into an intelligent system of thought.

We all are trying to follow what the Bible says. Just because you think you are right and I’m not, doesn’t let you impugn motives on me, or assume that I am just resisting the plain teaching of the Bible. We all come to the Bible with different assumptions and with holes in our thinking. I know what I’m saying here won’t really make sense until I move on to the next point. So let’s do that.

The Evidence to Explore

It’s time to back up what I’m saying with some evidence. Let me do it this way. Non-Calvinists will unfurl their list of proof texts that they claim Calvinists “explain away” in favor of their man-made philosophy/system. Then they point to the Calvinists’ explanation of these texts as proof that Calvinists really are all about “logic”, “intellect”, or whatever. And they very neatly conclude that Calvinism is just a man-made philosophy that doesn’t come from Scripture.

With this background, let me marshal some of the non-Calvinist texts for you. Then I’ll show what Calvinists do in explaining them that seems so “man-made” to the other side. Next I’ll turn around and marshal some Calvinist texts for you, and show that non-Calvinists do a similar job of explaining away texts in a “man-made” fashion. Finally, I will list some texts that both sides of this debate “philosophize” together on. You be the judge!

Calvinist “Philosophizing”

John 3:16 — Calvinists explain away “whosoever will”, claiming only the elect can believe and be saved. In this verse, and others, Calvinists redefine “whosoever” to mean “the elect”.

2 Pet 3:9 & 1 Tim 2:4 — Calvinists explain away “[God is] not willing/wishing that any should perish” and “[God] desires all (people) to be saved”, claiming that God only wants the elect to be saved. In these verses Calvinists either redefine “all” or “wish/desire”.

1 Jn 2:2 — Calvinists explain away the truth that Christ is a propitiation for “the sins of the whole world”, claiming that Christ died only for the elect. Here Calvinists twist “whole world” into “world of the elect”.

1 Pet 1:1-2 — Calvinists explain away the qualification that people are elected “according to the foreknowledge of God”, claiming people are elected apart from God’s knowing beforehand that they will choose to believe. Here Calvinists ignore the above phrase altogether.

Heb. 2:9 — Calvinist’s explain away the assertion that Jesus died to “taste death for everyone”, claiming instead that Jesus only tasted death for the elect. In this verse Calvinists redefine “every”.

Non-Calvinist “Philosophizing”

Acts 13:48 — Non-Calvinists explain away “as many as were appointed/ordained to eternal life believed”, claiming instead that because people believe they are elected/ordained. In this verse they redefine “appointed/ordained” to mean “predisposed to”.

Jn1:13 & 1 Jn 5:1 — Non-Calvinists explain away both that the new birth is “not of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man but of God” and that belief in Jesus indicates one “has been born of God” (rather than resulting in a subsequent new birth), claiming that the new birth results from human-originated faith. In these verses, non-Calvinists seem to ignore the above phrases altogether.

Jn 10:26 — Non-Calvinists explain away Jesus statement that people “do not believe because [they] are not part of [Jesus’] flock”, claiming instead that it is belief which makes people members of his flock. Here, non-Calvinists ignore the cause relationship between being of Jesus’ flock (which comes first) and believing. [Cf. Jn. 8:47]
2 Pet 2:8b — Non-Calvinists explain away the statement “they disobey the word, as they were destined to do”, claiming rejection of the Gospel and disobedience in general does not result from any choice on God’s part or any outside force at all. In this verse, non-Calvinists either redefine “destined (or appointed)” or explain this as referring only to national Israel.

Rom. 9:11,15-16, 22-23 — Non-Calvinists explain away such clear statements as “though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad–in order that God’s purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of his call”, “I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy….So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy”, and “vessels of wrath prepared for destruction…vessels of mercy, which [God] has prepared beforehand to glory”, claiming instead that the passage does not touch on individual election or salvation at all. For these verses non-Calvinists claim that only national Israel and national election is in view, not individual salvation.

Calvinist & Non-Calvinist “Philosophizing”

Rom. 5:18 — Both groups explain away the statement “one act of justification leads to justification and life for all men”, claiming instead that only some men receive justification and new life. In this verse, both groups redefine “all” to be referring to a specific segment of humanity: “the saved/elect”.

1 Cor. 15:22 — Both groups explain away the truth that “as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive”, claiming that only some men will be made alive in Christ. Here both groups claim the first “all” refers to all people and the second “all” only refers to “the saved/elect”.

Jn. 14:28b — Both groups explain away Jesus’ statement that His “Father is greater than [He]”, claiming instead that Jesus is co-equal in essence with God the Father in the Trinity. In this verse, both groups look at the larger context of the phrase and define it in light of Jesus’ subjecting Himself as a man under the authority of God the Father.

Rom. 2:7 — Both groups explain away the assertion that those who “by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, [God] will give eternal life”, claiming rather that eternal life is given on the basis of faith alone not as a reward for “well-doing”. Both groups interpret the verse in light of the whole teaching of Romans and harmonize it with other clear verses which say salvation is given on the basis of faith in Christ alone.

A Final Appeal to Non-Calvinists

Now we come to the conclusion. From the above list of texts let us make a couple points. First notice that both sides do some “philosophizing”. We cannot escape the need to fit the various texts into our heads and try to harmonize them. So no side can truly claim neutrality. There isn’t just a completely simple “Biblical” interpretation that can be taken for granted.

Secondly, I hope you would agree that we can’t just “keep score”. We don’t give the prize to the group with the longest list. Each and every text on both lists must be brought into harmony with one another. We can’t ignore Acts 13:48 if we don’t have an answer for it, simply because we can find 20 verses that have “whosoever will” in them.

Finally, let me encourage any non-Calvinists to do some homework. Don’t lash out against the imagined evils of Calvinism. Seek to truly understand our position. Many of us, myself included, used to dwell in your ranks. It was Scripture which caused us to change our thinking in this area. It is so easy to just attack the opposite position and claim they’re just plain wrong, and go on to imply they’re unBiblical. I have to guard against the temptation to be lazy in my debating myself, as well.

If you really want to understand Calvinism, please do yourself a favor and read one or two articles written by Calvinists. Get the scoop from the horse’s mouth himself! I recommend this short booklet written by my pastor John Piper. In the comment thread linked to at the top of this post, there is evidence of a non-Calvinist reading that booklet and coming to understand he was much closer to being a Calvinist than he thought. At the least he gained an appreciation for Calvinism and understood us better.

So please, before you claim we’re just a man-made philosophy, check out the evidence for yourself. Try to understand how we arrive at our conclusions. If you stop and listen, at the least you will have to see we are moved by many many texts to come to the conclusions we arrive at.