TIP TOEING THROUGH THE TULIP
Of all of the passionately contested dogmas in Christendom over the millennia, perhaps none rival the contentious battles fueled by the theologies of John Calvin and Jacobus Arminius, developed during the latter half of the sixteenth century. It has been over five hundred years now, and the Church is still divided over these two competing thoughts, in regards to our salvation. In one sense, the argument comes down to two very basic elements: the sovereignty of God and the freewill of man. It can be expressed as follows: on the one side, God is sovereign over all of His creation and He sovereignly chooses to save some and not others, (Calvinism). The opposing view postulates that, since God knows all things, He therefore is able to choose those who will choose Him, in and of their own free will, because he wants an honest response from the hearts of men to His offer of salvation, (Arminianism). There are an abundance of biblical texts that support each of these concepts adequately, and some of our greatest pastors and theologians have found themselves on one side or the other, and sometimes both, so why argue about it? The answer is quite simple… Satan loves a good fight, especially in the Church.
The Heidelberg Catechism, written in 1563 by some friends of John Calvin, was responsible for spreading the doctrine of Calvinism throughout Europe, but the opposing view of the Arminians did not adequately develop and rise up in opposition to Calvinism until 1618, at the Synod of Dort in the Netherlands. This assembly of presbyters looked much more like a kangaroo court, with the judge and jury heavily stacked in favor of the Calvinists, than an honest ecclesiastical counsel, sincerely evaluating the merits of each of the arguments. Unfortunately, the theological concerns of the Arminians were dismissed as unorthodox before they even arrived. What a pity, and once again the Body of Christ was severed into additional divisive factions, tragically antagonistic toward others in the Church, until the end of the age. Even though, the Apostle Paul exhorted believers, “…with all lowliness and gentleness, with longsuffering, bearing with one another in love, [endeavor] to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.”1 All too often, semantic arguments, traditional biases, and carnal emotions are the only ingredients needed to launch a new denominational split in the Church, and that is exactly what we have in this case.
The Synod of Dort, in an attempt to squash the opposing views of Arminianism, which are found in the five doctrinal statements known as the “Remonstrance”, established what is commonly known as the “Five Points of Calvinism” (illustrated by the acronym ‘TULIP’), and it is this theological framework that guides the Calvinist and Reformed churches to this day. To be sure, the theological difficulties involved in this debate are not just semantical, nor are they easily resolved, but they can be reconciled if our preconceived biases are left out of the discussion and Scripture is allowed to speak. Where the hard core Calvinists see, “irreconcilable opposites of scripture,” and, “paradoxical, mysteries that cannot be explained”2, we must see the possibility that maybe the straw man arguments and inflexible definitions that we have erected, are in need of modification, in light of contradicting scriptural evidence. Take just one simple example, the doctrine of ‘Limited Atonement’ (point #3). This absolutely cannot be justified scripturally, and requires quite a number of clever maneuvers to navigate around even the most basic of scriptures, such as, “For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son that whoever believes in him should not perish but have everlasting life.”3 The notion that Christ didn’t die for the sins of the whole world, but that His atonement was only limited to those who would actually gain eternal life is ridiculously flawed, but that was the doctrine that was etched in stone five hundred years ago, and it cannot be challenged, apparently.
The Remonstrance on the other hand, also fails to fully account for the whole counsel of God’s word, in some areas. One particularly weak point deals with the notion that man, “through negligence, of forsaking again the first beginnings of their life in Christ, of again returning to this present evil world, etc…”4, may therefore, possibly run the risk of forfeiting the salvation that Christ secured for them, before the foundations of the earth were laid. This seems equally unscriptural and severely weakens the power of God to keep those whom He has chosen. Indeed, “For whom He foreknew, He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the firstborn among many brethren. Moreover whom He predestined, these He also called; whom He called, these He also justified; and whom He justified, these He also glorified.”5
It is a dangerous position to take, and we play into the hands of Satan and his destructive work against the Church, when we sacrifice unity by becoming too overly dogmatic and sectarian about questionable subjects that are not easily definable in scripture. That is why many churches have chosen to abandon the creeds and dogmas of the past in favor of doctrinal statements similar to the following:
“The Bible is inspired by God in its entirety… It is authoritative in our lives and is our creed. Therefore, any effort to define the basis of our teaching necessitates emphasis on the whole Word of God as the sole source of our beliefs. Furthermore, it seems unwise to adhere to the labels of much of Christendom, whether it's Fundamentalism, Pentecostal, Calvinism, Arminianism, Charismatic, Dispensational, Reformed, etc. It is unrealistic to think that any individual man-made system of beliefs is completely error free or, conversely, without merit at all. It is therefore our sincere desire to simply teach the Bible, verse by verse, and cover to cover. We trust that the Holy Spirit will lead us to the intended meaning and truth found in God's inspired Word.”6
1. New King James Version, Holy Bible, Thomas Nelson, Inc. Publisher, Eph 4:2-3
2. Moody Handbook of Theology, Enns, Paul, 1989, Moody Press, Chicago, IL. Ch. 33, pg. 483
3. New King James Version, Holy Bible, Thomas Nelson, Inc. Publisher, John 3:16
4. New King James Version, Holy Bible, Thomas Nelson, Inc. Publisher, Rom 8:29-30
5. Statement of Faith, Calvary Chapel True North, www.calvarychapelnorth.com, home page
