Shootin' Up Tulips

Although controversies in any area of theology can degenerate into the kind of misdirected argumentation mentioned in the last post, it seems, at least in my experience and observation, that one area is subject to more confusion and misrepresentation than several others put together.  This would be the area of soteriology–the study of doctrines pertaining to salvation.

There are several sub-controversies under the one “salvation theology” heading, each one directly affecting the others.  The nature of God, the nature of unsaved man, the nature of saved man, the nature of grace, the nature of sin, the nature and purpose of the work of Christ, and of course the nature and extent of salvation itself all come into play.

Major elements of this controversy can be traced to at least as far back as the early 5th century (besides, obviously, what’s said in the Bible) with the conflict between Augustine and Pelagius concerning the free will of man and the extent of the effects of Adam’s fall.  The soteriology debate, with all of its various sub-debates, mushroomed during and after the Protestant Reformation, and the disagreement continues to divide Christians today.

Since the time of the Reformation, those who have held to essentially the same soteriological beliefs as virtually all of the leading Reformers have been known as “Calvinists,” after John Calvin (1509-1564), the famous leader of the church in Geneva, Switzerland.  Regarding man’s sinfulness, Calvin taught that the Bible describes man as “enchained” by sin to the extent that he cannot do what is truly pleasing to God, including respond positively to the gospel, and nothing short of a sovereign work of God in the heart of man that could bring about man’s salvation.  He also taught that God wrought this saving work only in the hearts of those whom He had, from eternity, elected or chosen to save.

Those who disagreed with Calvin’s interpretations of the Bible in this area came to be known generally as “Arminians,” after Jacobus Arminius, a Dutch Reformer who was born just a few years before Calvin died.  Although Arminius did not appear to hold to all the positions the modern-day Arminian theologians typically defend, he did maintain that the unregenerate are brought, by God’s grace, to a point where they possess the real ability or freedom to accept or reject God’s offer of salvation made in the call of the gospel, and it is this decision that determines their eternal destinies.  Those who took up his teachings and expanded upon them drew up The Remonstrance in 1610.  This was a statement of faith that made clear their doctrinal differences with the majority of the Reformers.  Their own beliefs were expressed in five articles, which stated (in brief) that:

1. God’s election or reprobation is based on His foreknowledge of an individual’s acceptance or rejection of the gospel.
2. Christ died for all men equally, though salvation is only given to those who put their faith in Christ.
3. Man, in his depravity, is unable to come to faith in Christ apart from God’s enabling grace.
4. God’s enabling grace is resistible.
5. It is unclear at this point whether true believers can finally fall away from the faith.  (Apparently at some later point it did become clear; full-fledged Arminians, for some time now, have held to the position that it is indeed possible for true believers to lose their salvation.)

After nearly a decade of further debate, the Synod of Dort was held in Holland in 1618-1619.  At this synod, consisting of Reformed church leaders from several different countries, the doctrines of the Remonstrants were condemned and the opposing doctrines that are nowadays identified as “Calvinistic” were affirmed as biblical truth.  These teachings were sometime afterward arranged and presented as five points of doctrine, the famed (cue ominous booming echo) “Five Points of Calvinism” that have been gracefully arranged to form the acrostic “TULIP”:

Total depravity - Unregenerate man is both unable and unwilling to come to Christ for salvation.
Unconditional Election - God’s election of an individual to salvation is based on His own perfect will and good pleasure alone, rather than His foreknowledge of that person’s acceptance of the gospel.
Limited Atonement - Christ’s death was only ever intended to cover the sins of His elect; on the cross He bore only the sins of those who will actually be saved.
Irresistible Grace (also called “effectual grace”) - The Holy Spirit’s quickening of a spiritually dead person will infallibly accomplish what He intends it to accomplish–the repentance and salvation of that individual.
Perseverance (or Preservation) of the Saints - All those who are truly saved can never lose their salvation.  By God’s grace they will never completely “fall away from the faith.”

This is a pitifully incomplete summary, or even introduction, of the soteriology controversy within the church; it’s given only as a ridiculously brief outline for those completely unfamiliar with the debate.  R.C. Sproul’s book Willing to Believe is an interesting, easy-to-follow survey of the “free will/original sin” element of the debate throughout church history, and I can’t think of a more recommendable resource on that subject.  And then there’s always Wikipedia!  There are, of course, many Christians whose beliefs don’t put them comfortably into either of the two camps mentioned, but as far as the debate has been concerned, Arminianism and Calvinism are the primary positions.

Now, back to the thought that opened this post–my contention that this area of theology is constantly misrepresented in the course of debate.  It’s only fair to mention at this point that I believe the Bible consistently teaches each one of the (repeat ominous booming echo, with more reverb) “Five Points of Calvinism,” oftentimes called the “Doctrines of Grace.”  I’ve had ample opportunity to observe every one of the points of Calvinistic doctrine constantly misunderstood and, consequently, misrepresented by those who oppose them.  I’m also aware that we Calvinists have certainly done our share of misrepresenting as well, but for the present I’ll let others tackle that side of it while I content myself with simply trying to avoid further justifying their complaints.  Although I realize my li’l ol’ blog posts likely won’t go far on the great big web, I’d still like to do my part to clear the muddy waters in my section of the pond.  With these few historical details given as an introduction (and a test of the reader’s patience), as John Owen put it, “If the Lord give life and strength,” I’ll look at each point of doctrine in question and lay out what Calvinists actually do and do not believe on that topic and any others immediately related to it, to the best of my ability.  Next post I’ll get right to one of the first areas of contention.