“Once you were alienated from God and were
enemies in your minds because of your evil behavior. But now he has reconciled you by Christ’s
physical body through death to present you holy in his sight, without blemish and
free form accusation – if you continue in your faith, establish and firm, not
moved from the hope held out in the gospel.”
Colossians
1:21-23a
Today is all about
tulip gazing. With spring upon us in the
Northeast and yet another dumping of snow, I can’t help wonder if some of you
are excited with that prospect. I hate
to be a killjoy but our time of tulip gazing hasn’t anything to do with spring
or the beautiful flowers it brings but in doctrine, deep into doctrine. Some of you are shutting down right now but
stick with me because you might just love me by the time we are done. We might even become besties?
I love the weight
of what our scriptures teach us today.
Before we get into our tulip gazing let’s take a moment to really let
the truths soak in from verses 21-22. “Once you were alienated from God and were
enemies in your mind because of your evil behavior. But now he has reconciled you by Christ’s
physical body through death to present you holy
in his sight, without blemish and free from accusation.” (Emphasis
mine).
Because of
Christ’s death of his physical body, you stand reconciled before God when you
put your faith in Jesus. You could never
have done this for yourself. God had to
do it for you. You could not and cannot
make yourself holy (in his sight not yours), blameless or free from
accusation. Only a savior could do
that. God did it. Not you.
Jesus did it. Not you.
Glory! So grateful. Because Christ took the punishment we get
right standing. Not such a fair deal but
one I embrace. There is no other way to
be reconciled to God. No. Other.
Way. You can’t do it yourself. Only God can do it. And He does.
What a God we serve!!!!
Tulip gazing. In the last year or so, I found myself, by
necessity, delving deep into the study of the doctrine of grace. Seemed simple enough when I started, yet a
year and half later I am still attempting to get my mind wrapped around this
doctrine and all of its complexities of which there are many. Not only is the doctrine complex but it is
equally controversial. I learned that
there are two rather distinct camps and lots of grey in-between. I know what you are thinking. Yawn.
Hold tight.
The controversy
started around the 16th and 17th century between John
Calvin and Jacob Arminius. Arminius
called into question some of the teachings of John Calvin and what ensued was a
debate that still echoes through churches, universities, home bible study
groups etc.; even today. What is the
seed of this controversy? Basically free
will. To put it more scholarly, God’s
sovereignty versus man’s responsibility regarding salvation. Are you starting to feel a bit of
tension? You should. It is a tense topic and one that might rattle
your belief system. Rattling is good
because we need to know what we believe and why we believe it. We are not called to just take someone else’s
word for it. Your faith is your
faith. Faith is your foundation and what
you believe will be reflected in how you live.
Since we want to live for the glory of God, we need to be rattled every
now and again. I commence rattling.
Right about now
you might be wondering; “so what exactly did Calvin believe and what was
Arminius’s problem with it”. And what in
heaven’s name do tulips have to do with this.
John Calvin’s
thesis regarding the doctrine of grace has been summed up with five points
represented in the acronym TULIP. He is
how it is spelled out.
T – Total
depravity of Man – every aspect of humanity is tainted by sin; therefore, man
is unable to come to God on his own accord.
U – Unconditional
Election – God elects individuals to salvation based entirely on His will,
not on anything inherently worthy in the individual.
L- Limited
atonement – The belief that Jesus died for only the elect.
I - Irresistible
– God’s grace is irresistible. When God
calls a person to salvation that person will inevitably come.
P – Perseverance
of the saints – the concept wherein a person who is elected by God will
persevere in faith and will not permanently deny Christ or turn away from
Him.
What did Jacob
Arminius believe? Basically, the
opposite of all the five points.
Instead of total
depravity, Arminianism teaches partial depravity. Partial depravity states that even though every
aspect of humanity is tainted by sin, man is still able to put their faith in
God of their own accord.
Instead of unconditional
election, Arminianism teaches conditional election. Conditional election states that God elects
individuals to salvation based on His foreknowledge of who will believe in
Christ for salvation, thereby on the condition that the person chooses
God.
Instead of limited
atonement, Arminianism stresses unlimited atonement. Christ died for everyone and not just the
elect.
Instead of God’s
grace being irresistible, Arminianism says that God’s grace can be
resisted.
Instead of the perseverance
of the saints, Arminianism holds to conditional salvation where a believer
can turn away of his own free will from Christ and thereby lose salvation.
Let me point out
something of great importance before you plant yourself firmly on one side of
the debate over the other. Scholars have
supported both sides of the five “Tulip” points with scripture. Both sides are scriptural.
So is your head
spinning? My guess is that your belief
system is probably landing a little bit on both camps. Most likely you aren’t fully Calvin or fully
Arminian. You are not alone. There is a terminology that describes
different individuals doctrinal beliefs based on how many points of the Calvin “Tulip”
thesis they stand with. There are 5
pointers, 4 pointers, 3 pointers…you get the drift.
What is the world
does all this has to do with our verse today?
“if
you continue in your faith, establish and firm, not moved from the hope
held out in the gospel.” (Emphasis
mine)
Depending on where
you stand in your doctrinal belief of grace, will determine what you take this
verse to mean. Can you figure out which
of the five points this particular verse reflects? Try and figure it out for yourself, I can
wait.
If you got “p”,
you would be right. Perseverance of the
saints it is. If you hold to Calvin’s
perspective than Paul is saying that if
they continue in their faith, than they are genuine believers. If you hold to Arminian school of thought, it
would mean that it is up to the believer to keep themselves in their faith. Perplexing at its very core.
One last bit of
advice, know what your teachers believe and that would include this teacher. Whether you are a 5 pointer, a 4 pointer or
whatever pointer, it is best you know the teachers that instruct you and where
they stand regarding the doctrine of grace.
If you don’t, be prepared to be confused and frustrated. While I don’t advocate that you pack up and
run from any teacher that you don’t agree with, because you might even change
your perspective over time, but you want to be aware. Some are especially dogmatic about what they
believe and are unbending regarding certain doctrines that we need not be
dogmatic about. Scripture isn’t so we
shouldn’t be either. But I think even
that point would bring cause for dispute.
So where do I
stand on all of this controversy after my year plus of study. I believe….drum roll….neither and both. Both of these systems fail to explain the
unexplainable. We, as mere men, cannot
fully ever grasp the magnitude and brilliance of God. I believe that God can cause both of these
doctrines to be completely true. Yes,
God is absolutely sovereign and knows everything and yes we are called to make
a decision of faith in Christ for salvation.
While these facts seem like they contradict each other, in the mind of
God, they can make perfect sense.
Did I do a good job-explaining
TULIP? Are you glad you stuck with
me? Are we besties yet?
“Have you not known? Have you not heard?
The LORD is the everlasting God, the creator of the ends of the earth. He does not faint or grow weary; his
understanding is unsearchable.”
Isaiah
40:28
** Note much of my
research came from several articles on Calvinism from a wonderful resource on
the web gotquestions.org. Check them
out.
Besties!
ReplyDeleteJust as the Trinity can be better understood by an analogy with the three spatial dimensions we are familiar with, my suspicion is that we would better understand the intersection between God's sovereignty and man's free will if we had a better grasp of temporal dimensions.
We know we can put four lines together in two-dimensional space to get a square, and six squares together in three-dimensional space to get a cube We can imagine putting 8 cubes together in four-dimensional space to get a hypercube. By analogy, we can imagine a higher spiritual dimension in which persons can be "put together" in ways unknown to us now, and a three-personed God can be one entity. Which raises the interesting question: can/will we be put together in hyperpersonal ways once we are "like Him"? Is this something else of which marriage is a foreshadowing?
But being much more restricted in our temporal movement than spatially, the nature of time is more mysterious to us, and when we talk about "pre-" or "fore-" anything, or anything "eternal", we don't have the first clue what's really going on. We are used to cause and effect only going one way: he did this SO THEN I did that, and vice verse. But from the perspective of God's timelessness, His will and our will may have a much more dynamic and interactive relationship.
I think at the very least that once we've grasped the idea that God is outside of time entirely, the concept of "foreknowledge" goes right out the window. God doesn't "know the future", He simply sees it happening in His eternal now. Likewise God doesn't know what each of us are doing thinking, etc. the same way I know that it's dark in Australia right now, or that my husband's at work. He EXPERIENCES it all, and knows everything because he is continually and consciously upholding the existence of each subatomic particle and individual soul.
Bringing it down to a more practical level, I find it absolutely Biblical that "in me dwells no good thing", and that no-one can boast. On the other hand, if we have no free will in choosing God, do we have free will in anything else? If yes, than why would God grant humans free will in all decisions and actions except for the most important, eternally significant one of all? If no, then we are a world of robots, and God really is responsible for all the suffering.
Personally I solved this one by handing it back to God. I am content to believe that bot are true, it is one of His mysteries, and let Him know that if He wants me to understand it any better, I'm here listening whenever He's ready.
For me it's about sovereignty. If I can override His calling, then how sovereign and mighty is He? Keep in mind that TULIP only deals with soteriology-salation theology, NOT sanctification or free will in living one's life.
ReplyDeleteThe Bible mentions election over 33 times, free will but once (I think) regarding salvation. A careful read of Romans 8 and 9 support TULIP. I have found no Scripture as strong, in support of free will.
Also, if salvation is man's choice then Jesus' death on the cross didn't actually save anyone, it only made peopke savable. And, logically then, if no one ever made the free will choice to believe then His death was in vain. Think about that-the Cross as not accomplishing anything but possibility: "this will work IF people accept it." Jesus did not die for an "if" but for a "you," the ones whom the Father gave Him.
If we then say that God knew who would believe-make the choice for Him-and He died for them....well, that's not to far from election!
Christians will give God all the credit and glory when good things happen to them, then why not salvation? How can one believe "That promotion/child getting a job/answer to prayer was all Him, praise Him! But my salvation? Yeah, that was me. I made that choice, I made that happen."
Requiring salvation to be a man's choice makes the Cross "not enough," it puts man in charge.
"If I can override His calling, then how sovereign and mighty is He?"
DeleteYou could ask that same question about all of our acts that are contrary to His will. He can be entirely sovereign and mighty and still grant us agency. He can be able to compel us but still not choose to.
What then do we make of Timothy's, "He desires all people to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth"? One could make the argument that since something God desires has manifestly not happened, then therefore God is not sovereign. Unless you want to go for universalism...which is a whole other can of worms.
I ran a search of the term "choose" in the Bible, and as you indicated, God's choosing of man is mentioned way, way more that man's choosing of God. And yet, and yet...the Bible does not contradict itself. When God says "A" one hundred times, and "B" twice, I conclude that He wants us to pay more attention to A than B, not that B is false.
....
"Think about that-the Cross as not accomplishing anything but possibility: "this will work IF people accept it.""
But from the perspective of eternity there is no "if this happens", no 'possibility', it's all simultaneous.
"If we then say that God knew who would believe-make the choice for Him-and He died for them....well, that's not to far from election!"
Agreed.
Don't get me wrong, i believe the Bible is clear on God's election, I just think it's equally clear that there's also some other stuff going on also, and the intersection between them is not as simple as we'd like it to be.
Marcy, good points. As far as 1st Timothy (and other verses like it) John Piper has this to say: " Though God desires all people to be saved, he “may perhaps grant repentance.” Which I think means that God’s desire for all to be saved does not lead him to save all. God has desires that do not reach the level of volition. They are restrained by other considerations — like his wisdom, which guides him to display his glory in the fullest way."
ReplyDeleteYes, we have agency in our choices but the whole debate about election/choosing has to do with salvation alone, not sanctification. One way Reformed thinkers put it is that salvation is "monergistic" meaning, it's from God and God alone while our sanctification (once saved) is "synergistic" from God and us.