In my last several posts, we began the process of looking at
each of the components of TULIPS in order to see how well this model of
salvation aligns with Scripture. In looking at
Total Depravity, we agreed with
much of the traditional position though we found no Scriptural evidence for:
regeneration prior to faith; an understanding that death means spiritual
inability to act; and that the non-believer is unable to exercise faith. Thus,
we stated that a person will never seek God in their sinfulness. However,
through the conviction of the Holy Spirit, God seeks each individual making
them aware of their standing before Him. It is at this point that a person does
or does not exercise their faith in Jesus. Once they believe, they are given
life which is the presence of God through the Holy Spirit living in them. All
the benefits of salvation are immediately bestowed upon them (though final
fulfillment awaits our resurrection).
In our overview of
Unconditional Election, we found little
in the Calvinist position that aligns with Scripture. There is only one
individual in Scripture identified as elect – Jesus (all other identifications
are of a group of people). {{Ephesians 1}} tells us that we are elect in Him (i.e.
our election is by association not by decree) and that God foreknew this in {{1
Peter 1}} and {{Romans 8}}.
We completely disagreed with the position of Limited
Atonement. Since Calvinists cannot supply Scriptural proof that Christ died
only for the elect, we believe there is a universal redemption that has been paid
for all mankind ({{1 Timothy 2:6}}, {{2 Peter 2:1}}). This redemption is applied to the
unregenerate the moment that they place their faith in Jesus ({{Galatians 4:5}}).
We also completely disagreed with the position of
Irresistible Grace primarily on the grounds already defended in Total
Depravity. Since Scripture clearly states in several places that faith is prior
to regeneration and because there are passages that would contradict the idea
of saving faith being a direct gift of God, we cannot support this point in
Calvinism.
We agreed with the Calvinist position on Preservation of the
Saints – that a person who has placed their faith in Jesus cannot lose their
salvation. We cannot lose our salvation because once we have placed our faith
in Christ, we are given the Holy Spirit – God in us ({{1 Corinthians 3:16}}) – as a
promise that one day our life will be completely defined by God with us
({{Revelation 21:3}}). This regenerating of our lives sustains our faith such that
although it may ebb and flow, it is never extinguished ({{1 John 5:1}}). All of
this is because of God’s grace which is greater than any of our sin ({{Romans
5:20}}).
In this article, we will look at the sixth component of
TULIPS – Sovereignty of God. It should be duly noted that most models
(actually, I’ve never seen any models) do not have this sixth component.
However, this concept of God is so interwoven throughout the components of
TULIP that I’m actually surprised that someone hasn’t added it long ago.
Without an understanding of the Calvinist understanding of sovereignty, it is
hard to completely understand the system.
Sovereignty of God From a Calvinist Perspective
Most of the material that I will use comes from A.W. Pink’s Sovereignty of God (
read online).
I realize that not everyone in the Calvinist camps agree completely with Pink
(though I’ve found it’s hard to find any one authoritative person on any one
component of Calvinism), but I think that he pretty much represents a historical
Calvinist position on sovereignty.
What do Calvinists mean when they speak of the Sovereignty
of God? For the Calvinists, to speak of the sovereignty of God is to declare
the very nature of who God is. The Sovereignty of God in Scripture is complete,
cannot be opposed, and is unlimited. God, in His sovereignty may act however He
pleases (which is always within His perfect nature). The Sovereignty of God is
the defining character of not only God but of all His attributes. God is
sovereign in His power which means all that He wills occurs when and where He
has willed it. God is sovereign in the bestowing of His power on others. When
God is merciful it is because of His sovereignty in choosing whom to be
merciful to. Even in the employment of His love, His sovereignty is working in
that He may choose whom He will love and whom He will not.
Any suggestion that mankind is ‘involved’ in being saved
(i.e. through the exercise of faith rather than through a gift of faith from
God) suggests synergism (the working of both God and man) in salvation which
breaks down the whole concept of a God that is in control of all things (since,
for a person to exercise faith, the individual must be in control of their
faith). Every aspect of salvation must include only the action and work of God.
Where I Think Calvinists Lack Scriptural Support
I have often wondered why Calvinists react so adversely to changes
where TULIP does not seem to align with all of Scripture. When I recently
learned of some Calvinists who believe that TULIP = the Gospel, I thought I had
my answer. But in speaking with other Calvinist friends who strongly denied
that TULIP=the Gospel (though it is a system of thought to define salvation), I
realized that I had not hit the core issue.
The core issue is the Sovereignty of God. For Calvinists, to
make a change to TULIP is not just to change beliefs about salvation, nor even
to change the Gospel. It is to impugn what in their eyes is the very core
nature of God – His sovereignty. According to this premise, God’s sovereignty
is THE attribute that all other attributes fall under. Though Pink tries to
make this argument, it is with much deduction and little Biblical induction. As
best as we can tell from Scripture, all of God’s attributes are equally at work
whenever He acts. God is not sovereignly loving. God is not sovereignly just.
God is not sovereignly powerful. God is not sovereignly merciful. When God
acts, all His actions are sovereign-loving-just-powerful-merciful-et al
actions. I know of no Biblical basis to think otherwise. Thus, the idea that
God’s sovereignty is THE defining attribute has no Biblical basis.
Calvin and Beza (and certainly the Reformed traditions that
developed from these men) both lived in a time where a new system of thought
was being developed. Though it would not come to full fruition for another
50-100 years (with DesCartes), the seeds of this thought were there. This
system of thought (foundationalism) sought to declare a single, unarguable
truth and build a system of thought (presumably with all other connected truths)
of contingent truths that is then unassailable (thus, I believe, how some have
come to the conclusion that TULIP = the Gospel). But can we define God using
this (or any) philosophy? What one statement can we make of God that defines
God in a way that is conclusive and consistent with all of Scripture? God
Himself, in His most direct pronouncement, only gives us ‘I Am,’ hardly enough
for us to build a system of thought off of. Unfortunately, foundationalism is
an insufficient system of thought to build any complex, multi-presuppositional
system off of about God – He simply is too complex for the system. I do not
mean to suggest that we cannot know God nor that there are no absolute Truths
about Him – only that we cannot begin with one unassailable Truth about Him and
build a system of thought off of it – His being is far too complex for this. Thus,
I realize that what I am about to embark on hammers away at the very thing that
Calvinists feel is unassailable.
As with many of the other areas that we discussed, it is
difficult to go through this section without a word study of sovereign (there
technically is no word for sovereign in Hebrew and the word in Greek for
sovereign does not appear in the NT, though English translations will use the
English word), kingdom, decrees, counsel, purpose and will. Unfortunately, such
word studies are impossible on a blog without extending this another several
weeks. As throughout this entire series, I strongly recommend C. Gordon Olson’s
book Beyond Calvinism and Arminianism (which,
as noted many times, much of my own material comes from) as an excellent study
of each of these. You can do these studies yourself using the instructions
here
(PS – since this is my last post
with Rey, I just want to add that in our day and age, there is NO REASON for
the typical believer to not be able to do what only a few years ago were
complex word and phrase studies – computers have changed our ability to study
these things – be a Berean and look into these things!!).
A study of the OT words at best show that God, who is
clearly omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent, intervenes in human affairs
according to His wisdom as He implements His general rule over the nations and
His plan of salvation. A study of NT words also leaves us without any hint that
there is a purpose, plan or counsel of God that comprehensively includes every
event in the universe. I’m sure those statements will have the proof texts
flying – let them come :).
The question we will ask is this: is God sovereign enough to
self-limit His authority while never losing control of His creation? I believe
from Scripture that is exactly what God has done.
We see God self-limiting His sovereignty in the very act of
creation. He created both angels and mankind with free will. If that means
anything, they must have been able to act apart from God’s direct intervention
(lest we believe that God authored sin in either/both Satan and Adam/Eve). In
addition, God gives the role of naming the animals to Adam (a symbol of
authority) and God delegates dominion of the earth to Adam and Eve. If this
means anything, it must mean that Adam and Eve had control over some
significant portions of Creation.
In addition, every promise and covenant of God limits His
sovereign freedom. Under these promises and covenants, God has self-limited the
free exercise of what He can and cannot do, lest He go against His word (e.g.
God cannot use a worldwide flood ever again – not because He is unable, but
because He has promised not to). Thus, if God declares that He is going to
limit His ability to act, it does not in any way infringe upon His
sovereignty…He can decide to act with, within and towards creation however He
chooses. Thus, if God pre-determines that salvation is to be given to those who
act in a non-meritorious way (through faith), this is not an infringement of
His sovereignty since He decided it.
Please understand that by stating that salvation
is through
faith exercised by the individual, I am not saying that God is not
sovereign
over all creation. He can do anything He desires in harmony with His
attributes
and His word. Calvinists have typically relied on a decree
(Westminister
Confession) or decrees (most American Calvinists – lapsarianism
outlined
here )
prior to creation that dictate every event, thought and action
throughout all
of eternity (i.e. from the beginning of time and forever).
Since there is no Biblical evidence of end-to-end decree(s)
of God in eternity past (again, if you disagree with me on this, please provide
Scriptural proof), we must take these examples of God self-limiting His actions
seriously. Extrapolating the information about God’s sovereignty is a dangerous
thing to do since it goes beyond what Scripture tells us. This idea of
decree(s) in eternity past also creates several problems.
First, and probably the worst, is that if God directly
decrees and causes all things, then He is the author of sin. If not, what
Biblical evidence is there that God decreed everything but sin…how can He
decree all things but sin given the stain of sin on all of humanity? What does
a decree of all things mean if it does not include sin? Some speak of God being
the ‘uncaused cause’ to try and separate Him from being the cause of sin. Quite
honestly, I don’t understand this self-contradicting statement (so any input
from others would help). It is not sufficient to say that God allows certain
things but does not actually cause them. If that is the position of Calvinists,
then they ought to appreciate my posts since that is exactly what we have
argued from the beginning – that mankind is able to act either in sin or in
faith in reaction to God’s revelation and that He has allowed this to occur
without losing any control over His creation.
Second and corollary to the first, mankind, at the very
least, in the Garden of Eden clearly had free will. But if everything has been
decreed, then that free will is removed. In what sense then are Adam and Eve
responsible for their sin?
Third, a God who is sovereign in the way that Calvinists
describe could never respond to mankind relationally or conditionally. Does God
really answer prayer? Are some of His blessings conditioned upon obedience?
Does He really spare people from temporal judgment when they repent? Is
salvation really conditioned upon faith? But if all these things are
predetermined and not an actual response to human contingency, then we are
unable to have any real relationship with God, for what is a relationship with
a person who has predetermined everything that we will do/say/think and how He
will respond? Is not a true relationship with God the very core of what
Scripture talks about from end to end?
Fourth, such decree(s) must include the reprobate. What this
simply means is that not only will such a person never believe, but that their
very existence of sinfulness towards God, and the eternal punishment for that
sinfulness was exactly what God had intended for them when the thought of them
entered His mind – not only did He intend for them to be that way, He causes
them to be that way.
So How Do We Understand the Sovereignty of God Based on
Scripture
The points below are what I believe can be clearly shown
throughout Scripture to be true statements. Any who feel that more need to be
added, will need to include Scripture to back up your claims since I find such
little evidence for the typical Calvinistic approach to the Sovereignty of God.
I think they are self-evident, so if you need Scriptural support of any of
them, let me know.
- God can rule His universe however He pleases. If part of
that ruling involves giving spheres of authority and freedom to His creatures,
He can do so without limiting His ultimate sovereignty over all creation. - We recognize that there are natural laws that govern the
universe. God upholds His creation and, at His desire and in accordance with
His nature, can supercede or suspend those laws at any time. - We also recognize that there are moral laws which govern
our universe. Again, God, at His desire and in accordance with His nature, can
supercede or suspend those laws at any time. - Being ruler over His creation, God can exercise punishment
for disobedience in whatever way and at whatever time His wisdom dictates. - God continues to delegate authority to all levels of
humanity (government, church leaders, family, etc.). This delegated authority
implies a limited freedom to act. In addition, as God makes promises, binds
Himself with covenants, and proclaims the future, He is voluntarily limiting
the free exercise of His actions. None of these suggest that He becomes the
inferior party in either the delegation of responsibility or in His pledges and
thus never compromises His complete control over His universe. - Since God knows all things, He is aware of all future
events, how His intervening in history will affect His creatures and their
actions both present and future, and He can do this without acting on the moral
agent involved in an irresistible manner. - There is no biblical basis for the notion that God has
exhaustively decreed every last event, action, and/or thought which transpires
in His universe, though He is fully aware of every event, action and thought
that has, is and will happen.
Almost a Final Word
Some might wonder why I have issues with the Calvinist
positions taken up in TULIPS (some, I’m sure, are convinced that it is either a
lack of spiritual maturity or the heretical ranting of an unregenerate…). So, I’ll try to explain where I think the
system falls apart and what presuppositions are in my own position.
I believe strongly in a theology that states exactly what
Scripture states. Let me use the Trinity as an example. When the early church
was confronted by the idea that God is one ({{Deut. 6:4}}) and that the Father was
deity ({{John 5:18}}), the Son was deity ({{Colossians 2:9}}), and the Holy Spirit was
deity ({{Acts 5:3-4}}), they needed to explain this seeming contradiction. By
recognizing the passages that dealt with Father, Son and/or Holy Spirit as
dealing with persons and the passages that speak of God as dealing with His
being, they were able to come up with the phrase, three persons-one being. What
I appreciate so much about this process is that they have specific, explicit
Scriptural evidence for each of the components of the doctrine of the Trinity.
There are no extrapolations, deductions, or inferences made. There has been so
little disagreement over this doctrine within orthodox Christianity, I believe,
primarily because it states exactly what Scripture states. The only statement
of the entire doctrine that does not have explicit Scriptural testimony is the
final explanatory phrase – three persons-one being – but every component of the
doctrine has explicit Scriptural support.
I do not find this same process with most Calvinists I
dialogue with. My plea to Calvinists is that if you really believe that your
system of theology is fully consistent with Scripture, that you find verses
that in context explicitly state exactly what you are saying. That has been my
attempt. The response throughout this series from Calvinists has not been that
I have misunderstood Scripture, but that I’ve misunderstood their theology. If
I had the right theology, I’d understand the verse correctly. To me, this seems
to suggest that we interpret Scripture through our theology. One of my
presuppositions is that we must interpret theology through Scripture. Thus, if
I do not have an explicit statement on the part of Scripture, I am not willing
to include it in my theology. I can wholeheartedly agree with Spurgeon when he
said, “I have great respect for orthodoxy, but my reverence for inspiration is
far greater. I would sooner a hundred times over appear to be inconsistent with
myself than be inconsistent with the word of God.” If I seem inconsistent in my
presentation, it’s because it is what I understand Scripture to be explicitly
stating. If I seem to be unhappy with components of Calvinism, it is because I
do not see explicit teaching for various components. However, as the doctrine
of the trinity shows, once we incorporate all the components of the Bible into
our theology, I believe we can present a soteriology that will stand the test
of time.
Another area of weakness that I see in the Calvinist
approach is that it plays good offense but terrible defense. If one happens to
be talking about the dozen or two verses that are primarily used to defend
Calvinism, then the discussion will go on for days. But when one attempts to
point to other Scripture passages which seem to place doubt on their position,
these references are either out-right ignored or I am told that they “are no
problem for Calvinism” yet without any explanation as to why. Calvinists need
not only to defend their position but begin interacting in the dialogue of
other verses that don’t seem to fully support their position. This will allow a
broader understanding of what all of Scripture has to say regarding their
position. Falling under this same heading is a penchant for labeling a person
with some former misdirected theologian or an outright heretic. Even funnier is
when I have been called a semi-heretic – though, for the life of me, I’m not
sure how someone can be a semi-heretic. This is an easier defensive move then
actually ascertaining whether the person actually believes what these
theologians or heretics have stated because it allows a person to defend
against a system of thought rather than the material that is being presented.
At some point, it would be nice to speak to a person who believes in TULIP
without having these labels thrown at me. I don’t believe in Arminianism – I
utterly disagree with Pelagius – and I am much more of a semi-Augustinian than
I am anything Pelagianist.
All that having been said, I have been as guilty of these
mistakes as my Calvinist brethren (WOW….only six weeks on a Brethren blog and
I’m already calling fellow believers brethren!!! 
), and for that I am
sincerely sorry. Let’s hold each other accountable on each of these points as I
think it will allow a real dialogue to occur so that we might come to an
understanding of God’s Truth in His Word together.
Finally, there are many ways that I have appreciated my
Calvinist heritage and still have great respect for. I have yet to find any
other branch of Christianity that has such a firm understanding of sin and its
impact in our lives. I am grateful for the many books on sin that have been
written by Calvinists since they have been invaluable to me. I also appreciate
their deeply held conviction of educating the next generation. I think it’s
safe to say that Calvinists long ago led the way in educating youth in a
Christian environment where God’s Word could freely be integrated into every
aspect of education. That education has been a precious gift to me from my
parents. Of course, the typical answers of a deep understanding of vocation as
ministry and the knowledge that God is overseeing all that happens in my life
have had impact not only on my own spiritual walk but also on the lives of
those that I have had the privilege of shepherding. For these things, I am
grateful for my Calvinist upbringing.
The Final Word(s)
Thank you!!! Thanks to Rey for allowing me to do this series
– he has been far more accommodating than I could ever imagine. Thanks to
Herman for trying to make my English actually sound like I grew up in an
English speaking environment :). Thanks to all those who responded since it
helped challenge my thinking on all sorts of different levels. And thanks to
all those who have read this. Its been humbling to see the number of hits and
think that God may be using me to help encourage people to understand in a
deeper way the wonder and majesty and power and glory that is our God’s as
shown in His salvation for us! If you have found anything that is even remotely
good in these writings, that all came from God – everything else was mine. To
Him be the glory!!
-Pastor Russ-
Posted in Uncategorized | Comments (0)
