What is TULIP? The who, why and how of salvation.

Arminianism and Calvinism

This quote was taken from J.I. Packer's introduction to the Death of Death in the Death of Christ by John Owen, and it sums up both Arminianism and Calvinism quite succinctly.

First, it should be observed that the “five points of Calvinism,” so-called, are simply the Calvinistic answer to a five-point manifesto (the Remonstrance) put out by certain “Belgic semi-Pelagians” in the early seventeenth century. The theology which it contained (known to history as Arminianism) stemmed from two philosophical principles: first, that divine sovereignty is not compatible with human freedom, nor therefore with human responsibility; second, that ability limits obligation. (The charge of semi-Pelagianism was thus fully justified.) From these principles, the Arminians drew two deductions: first that since the Bible regards faith as a free and responsible human act, it cannot be caused by God, but is exercised independently of Him; second, that since the Bible regards faith as obligatory on the part of all who hear the gospel, ability to believe must be universal. Hence, they maintained, Scripture must be interpreted as teaching the following positions: (1.) Man is never so completely corrupted by sin that he cannot savingly believe the gospel when it is put before him, nor (2.) is he ever so completely controlled by God that he cannot reject it. (3.) God’s election of those who shall be saved is prompted by His foreseeing that they will of their own accord believe. (4.) Christ’s death did not ensure the salvation of anyone, for it did not secure the gift of faith to anyone (there is no such gift); what it did was rather to create a possibility of salvation for everyone if they believe. (5.) It rests with believers to keep themselves in a state of grace by keeping up their faith; those who fail here fall away and are lost. Thus, Arminianism made man’s salvation depend ultimately on man himself, saving faith being viewed throughout as man’s own work and, because his own, not God’s in him.

The Synod of Dort was convened in 1618 to pronounce on this theology, and the “five points of Calvinism” represent its counter-affirmations. They stem from a very different principle—the biblical principle that “salvation is of the Lord”; and they may be summarized thus: (1.) Fallen man in his natural state lacks all power to believe the gospel, just as he lacks all power to believe the law, despite all external inducements that may be extended to him. (2.) God’s election is a free, sovereign, unconditional choice of sinners, as sinners, to be redeemed by Christ, given faith and brought to glory. (3.) The redeeming work of Christ had as its end and goal the salvation of the elect. (4.) The work of the Holy Spirit in bringing men to faith never fails to achieve its object. (5.) Believers are kept in faith and grace by the unconquerable power of God till they come to glory. These five points are conveniently denoted by the mnemonic TULIP: Total depravity, Unconditional election, Limited atonement, Irresistible grace, Preservation of the saints.

Now, here are two coherent interpretations of the biblical gospel, which stand in evident opposition to each other. The difference between them is not primarily one of emphasis, but of content. One proclaims a God who saves; the other speaks of a God Who enables man to save himself. One view presents the three great acts of the Holy Trinity for the recovering of lost mankind—election by the Father, redemption by the Son, calling by the Spirit—as directed towards the same persons, and as securing their salvation infallibly. The other view gives each act a different reference (the objects of redemption being all mankind, of calling, those who hear the gospel, and of election, those hearers who respond), and denies that any man’s salvation is secured by any of them. The two theologies thus conceive the plan of salvation in quite different terms. One makes salvation depend on the work of God, the other on a work of man; one regards faith as part of God’s gift of salvation, the other as man’s own contribution to salvation; one gives all the glory of saving believers to God, the other divides the praise between God, Who, so to speak, built the machinery of salvation, and man, who by believing operated it. Plainly, these differences are important, and the permanent value of the “five points,” as a summary of Calvinism, is that they make clear the points at which, and the extent to which, these two conceptions are at variance.

However. it would not be correct simply to equate Calvinism with the “five points.” Five points of our own will make this clear.

To learn of a broader, more well defined definition of Calvinism (and much more), read the entire article here.

Pre-mil? Post mil? Amil? Rapture?

Let me start right off with this disclaimer: I am not a Left Behind dispensationalist. I find that view to be far outside Scripture with very little basis in proper exegesis and hermeneutics. It makes for great Hollywood, but poor eschatology. For one thing, it dismisses the idea that God is no respecter of persons, because it separates national Israel as a uniquely favored group of people based on their nationality alone, and that view is strongly condemned in the NT epistles. I view the nation of Israel as a foreshadowing of things to come (as much of the OT is), specifically in Christ, and a microcosm of how men generally appear before God (stubborn and rebellious against God).

Having said that, I haven't landed firmly in any millennial camp yet, but I am hovering closely over amillennialism.

First, I think it's wise to give a brief description of the differing types of millennial views regarding Israel and the church.

• Amillennialism: The church is the eschatological fulfillment of Israel.
• Dispensational Premillennialism: Views church and Israel as two distinct peoples of God with two individual redemptive plans.
• Historic Premillenialism: The church is the fulfillment of Israel.
• Postmillennialism: The church is the fulfillment of Israel.

Handy Dandy chart: http://www.theologue.org/MillennialChart.html

I think that to distinguish Israel as a distinct nation is to miss the point Paul makes in Romans 9:6-7. Israel, in my estimation, is a TYPE while Christ (not the church) is the fulfillment of that type. In that regard, I disagree with each of these camps. See Matt 2:15 for one Scripture proof.

Now to argue the larger eschatological issue:

A while back, my pastor said in one of his sermons that amillennialists don't believe in a millennium. This is not exactly true. This camp does believe in a millennium, just not a literal 1,000 year period. We (they) believe it is a figurative number that describes a PERIOD of time, or an age. The reason I'm closing in on amillennialism is mainly because I believe we are now in this period of time, and the following is my reasoning from Scripture and history.

First of all, history. Regarding the tribulation of Christians: I recently listened to the Foxe's Book of Martyrs audio book, and if you would have told any Christian up until perhaps the founding of the United States that there would be a FUTURE tribulation of Christians, they would have called you naively uninformed at best and outright crazy at worst. The Christians of the first 17-1800 years underwent some of the most gruesome and inhumane tortures that man could devise. These faithful Christians endured through a VERY GREAT tribulation, and it is only now in this western comfort that we can complacently claim that there is a "still-to-come" tribulation. Even today, in many parts of the world, Christians are going through tribulations of terrible kinds! http://www.persecution.com/

Now from Scripture: This is by no means exhaustive, just preliminary. First of all, the tribulation has been going on since Stephen was stoned as recorded in Acts 7. John also said that he was in the tribulation at the time of his writing the letter at the end of the FIRST century. Rev 1:9a - "I, John, your brother and partner in the tribulation and the kingdom..."

Next, I believe the first resurrection spoken of in Rev 20:5 is speaking of regeneration, or spiritual birth.

"Scripture teaches us of two principle resurrections of the dead. It speaks of the resurrection in Christ (John 11:25, Ephesians 2:5) which is the called the first. But it also speaks of another resurrection at the last day (John 11:24, 1st Corinthians 15:52). Only one can be the first resurrection of the saints. And I want to say that again for emphasis. ONLY ONE can be the first Resurrection. And that is what many theologians cannot seem to comprehend. You cannot have two separate events, both called the first resurrection in scripture. That is confusion and God is not the author of confusion. In Revelation 20:5, the First Resurrection refers to what has occurred that made those souls who have died able to live and reign with Christ, while the souls of those who were unsaved (the rest of the dead) could not go to live and reign with Christ. The rest of the dead (unsaved who died) "they lived not again" until the second resurrection when they must be raised from death to stand for judgment before the throne of God. What the chapter is doing is contrasting the souls of the saved, which though they are dead, yet they still live and reign with Christ in heaven, with the souls of the "rest of the dead" (the unsaved) who didn't have life again until the second Resurrection. The ones who reign with Christ after death are those who have had part in the first resurrection. The expression, the First Resurrection clearly refers to the souls of the saints that are raised first, in distinction from the raising of these wicked (rest of the dead) that occurs after the millennium. This is at the the second resurrection."

Source: http://is.gd/GPF3

Thirdly, I believe Christ's kingdom is not a literal physical kingdom as taught by premil dispensationalists: Christ Himself said so in John 18:36 - "Jesus answered, "My kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world, my servants would have been fighting, that I might not be delivered over to the Jews. But my kingdom is not from the world.""

And to repeat, John believed he was in the kingdom as well in Rev 1:9a - "I, John, your brother and partner in the tribulation and the kingdom..."

What kingdom do you suppose John was speaking of?

I also believe the rapture, a phrase coined by John Nelson Darby near the end of the American Civl War, is unbiblical. The text most commonly referred to in defense of this theory is 1 Thess 4:15-17. If I may, another quote regarding this text:

"the New Bible Commentary: Revised:
"'To meet the Lord' (Gk. 'eis apantesin tou
kyriou'): When a dignitary paid an official visit ...
to a city in Hellenistic times, the action of the
leading citizens in going out to meet him and
escorting him on the final stage of his journey was
called the 'apantesis'; it is similarly used in
[Matthew] 25:6; Acts 28:15. So the Lord is pictured
as escorted to the earth by His people--those newly
raised from death and those who have remained
alive.""

I believe this historical context helps paint a better picture of what Paul is referring to. He is saying that this second coming is the FINAL and ONLY second coming. What is commonly explained as "the rapture of the church" in 1 Thess 4:15-17 is imagery of the servants of the Lord meeting and joining with their King as he comes to reign and conquer His enemies. It is not a secret rapture which ushers in a tribulation, or predates the final second coming (how many second comings are there?) The coming of Christ in 1 Thess 4:15-17 IS THE second coming of Christ in judgment. That day is THE Day of the Lord.

This, of course, is just a primer on my view of end times. If it sparks discussion, then perhaps we can fill in some of the details (if anyone reads this blog, that is).

I'm also researching Covenant Theology, which I hope to do a blog entry on in the near future.

Soli Deo Gloria