As I work through my seminary studies, I occasionally decide to write down my thoughts on some topic or discussion. The purpose is to capture my thoughts at the time I am actually in the midst of studying that issue. Hopefully, if I need to gather my thoughts someday for teaching or if I am ever ordained, the information is already gathered. Since I have a blog, I have decided to vent my learnings and thoughts on here. Feel free to ignore the post if you have no interest.
It is normal to associate Calvinism with a series of 5 points defining the extent and application of salvation. However, the actual five point stance is relatively misleading in its title and structure. Particularly, it is unfair to John Calvin to have his legacy so created. I am quite sure (though there are many who would disagree) that Calvin himself would not have appreciated the "TULIP" delineation and the strict definition as such.
It must be remembered that John Calvin arrived in history at a time when the Roman Catholic church was at an apex of corruption. The church was in the midst of selling forgiveness of sins in order to build massive cathedrals and live in luxury. It was toward this end that Martin Luther objected to much of the papal authority and became known as a Reformer. Calvin also became a similar reformer and, though opposed on a few issues, mirrored the emphases and work of Luther in opposing the established church.
Calvin's writings took two main forms. He wrote many commentaries (a link to which is included in the Bible Study page of this blog). In these commentaries, he taught directly from the scriptures. In conjunction, he also wrote increasingly larger versions of The Institutes of the Christian Religion. This book became his magnum opus and is still read and studied today. Calvin focused on the issues of his day and responded in specific manner to areas in which he saw error.
After his death, a man named Theodore Beza continued his work. He interpreted the points of Calvinism in retrospect and continued in the post which Calvin filled. A certain individual named Jacobus Arminius, who had studied under Beza, became convinced that in the area of predestination, there was some necessary clarification. When he became a teacher, he stressed that predestination was based upon God's foreknowledge of those who would have faith in Christ. His fellow teacher Francis Gomarus held an opposing view that predestination determines faith. Arminius was in all other aspects in line with everything Calvin had taught.
The debate raged after Arminius' death in an increasingly political battle. A group who supported Arminius formed after his death and wrote a document outlining five articles of clarification. They stated the following:
1. God determined before the world that those who would be saved would believe in Christ.
2. Jesus died for all human beings although only believers receive the benefits.
3. Humans can do nothing good on their own and God's grace is necessary to this end.
4. Grace is not irresistible.
5. It is not clear yet from scripture whether those who believe can fall away.
The political battle became more pronounced over the years and so the Synod of Dort was called. It was in this meeting that a response of five points was written specifically to be worded so that the opposing group would not be able to accept any of the articles. It was these intentionally designed articles that became what we know today as Calvinism.
1. Total depravity
2. Unconditional election
3. Limited atonement
4. Irresistible grace
5. Perseverance of the saints
With this history in mind, it is very unfair to use labels such as Calvinism and Arminianism. The development of current definitions is the result of numerous battles and intentional animosity. Calvin and Arminius would both have been very unhappy with the theologies which bear their name. While I am preparing a separate post directly addressing the traditional five points of Calvinism, I wanted to write down the story so that it is clear that such a discussion is neither pertinent nor helpful. While the doctrine of salvation should be carefully explained and defended, it is of no worth to specify and defend artificially created barriers which constrict Biblical truth rather than explain.
No comments:
Post a Comment