Am I a Five-Point Calvinist?
The five points of Calvinism is as follows: Total depravity; Unconditional election; Limited atonement; Irresistable grace; Perseverance of the saints. Put as an acronymn, it is TULIP. However, I find the language to be a bit to archaic and too easy to misunderstand my personal position. My purpose here is not to so much defend the five points from Scripture but to correct them in such a way to make myself more understood. I haven’t so much run into a problem in being misunderstood but I rather want to prevent that misunderstanding.
Starting with Total depravity, or TULIP, I want to redefine as Radical depravity. The acronymn now is RULIP. The problem I have with “Total” is that it carries with it that I am at the utmost worst sinner when comparing degrees of sin. It indicates that I am as a total sinner with actions identical with Adolf Hitler or Nero Caesar. I am in totality, depraved. I don’t think that is adequate but actually goes to far. I am a law abiding citizen. I am a fairly nice person, although I have an Irish temper. I would never hurt a fly, mainly because I can’t kill one if I try. I am no Hitler or Sadam Hussein. However, I am a sinner and I, apart from God’s saving grace, am an enemy of God and resist him. Therefore my depravity is radical. my depravity affects me greatly. It has radically affected me, but not totally.
Next, Irresistable grace, or TULIP, I’d like to redefine it as Effectual grace or Effectual calling. This makes the acronymn to be RULEP. The word “irresistable” conjures up the false image that all non-calvinists throw at me that people come to salvation against their will. I do not adhere to that notion. Anyone who holds those views or argues that argument have in mind hyper-calvinism and doesn’t understand Calvinism. There is an external call by the preacher to faith given during an invitation. There is an internal call of God which effects salvation. He exercises his sovereign power to open the eyes of the heart to glory and goodness and desirability of the gospel of Jesus so that the person will desire to accept Christ in faith, freely. However he wouldn’t have known that until God opens his eyes. Once God begins that work, he sees it through to perfection. God does not fail at whatever he does. So his internal call effects faith because that is its purpose.
The next point I’d like to redefine is Limited Atonement, TULIP. I define it as Particular redemption which makes the acronymn RUPEP. I don’t like the term “limited” because again it conjures up false images. I do not deny the universal sufficiency of the atoning death of Christ. But I will say that the cross effects atonement only for those people who will believe in Christ. Therefore I affirm both he died for the world in that the cross has the ability to save anyone in the world. I also affirm that the cross only saves those who take it up in faith. The cross is particular to those who take it by faith. If anyone from anywhere at anytime comes to faith, the cross has the sufficeincy to atone for that person’s sin and effects atonement for that person’s sin.
Fourthly is Unconditional Election, or TULIP, which while I like that term in describing what I believe about election. But I don’t think it goes far enough. I prefer to describe it as Sovereign election. The term “sovereign” includes unconditionality but links it closer and more intimately with God. Election is the choice of God to save his people from their sins. God does not look at any distinction in man to determine what choice he will make. It is according to his sovereign will and purpose rooted in his desire to declare his glory. This makes the acronymn loose its coherancy as it becomes RSPEP.
Lastly there is Perseverance of the saints, or TULIP. I like what it says and I don’t want to change it. I could change it to Eternal security if I wanted to because it communicates the same idea. This would change the acronymn to RSPEE, but I will leave it as RSPEP–either are fine. I do believe that if God has effectually called those to himself, then he will effectually keep them. Those whom God has chosen to save he saves in total and finally. That means that God will see them through to the resurrection and will not lose any of them.
I am a Five-Point Calvinist but I prefer to redefine the terms so that the images these archaic terms conjures up is not what myself as a Calvinist believes. I hope that people will have these terms in mind when they read my posts and I hope that a level of miscommunication has been avoided by making this known.
Related posts:
3 Comments so far
Leave a reply
Interesting take on these items of faith.
I like what you have done with limited atonement. I think the way you have it is very compatible with my ideas of potential universal salvation and actualized salvation.
Also, your treatment of depravity and calling are curious. Would you say that people are able to seek God on their own? I wonder if you do allow for that when you say that people do not come to God against their will. I am not sure on how you would straddle those lines.
I am enjoying your posts on Calvinism. Even though that article on the five points from CT made me cringe!
I figured this might help clarify a few things. It is often believed that Calvinist limit the power of the cross. The cross is able to save all who come to Jesus by faith, but only those who come by faith.
In Radical Depravity, I have not done away with orginal sin. All people are by nature sinners, godless, and enemies of God. What I was trying to spell out is that “total” gives the idea that every person is an Adolf Hitler. That’s not true. However we all are like Adam and transgress the law of God. That is a radical depravity.
Because all men are born enemies of God, godless, and are by nature sinners, I say that we don’t seek after God. Instead we pervert God’s revelation. That’s where God’s call comes into play. Until God calls us by his grace, no man willingly comes. For any man to willingly come, the nature must change. That’s what the effectual grace and call does, it commands us to come and then acts to change us so that we willingly come to Him. Thus all who come to God come willingly, all who die in sin are in sin because they will to sin.
No will is ever truly autonomous and self-determining. If we are slaves to sin then our will is obedient to sin’s mastery. If our will is naturally sinful, then it naturally wills to sin. If our will is righteous and desires God, then it will naturally seek God and righteousness. Jesus said in Matthew 12
that a bad tree yields bad fruit and a good tree bears good fruit. A tree can’t make itself good when it is naturally bad. But God calls the tree to produce good fruit. That call effects a change in the tree to bear the good fruit.
The article did sum up Dortian Calvinism very well. As I have shown, I kind of distance myself from Dortian Calvinism. It also gave some verses on Calvinism that I didn’t intend to give.
One thing I must say is that I am not full-blown Calvinist. I do adhere to the five points as described in this post but I do not hold to all of Calvin’s theology. I do not believe babies have to be baptized–which I know seems that contradicts my belief in Original Sin. I don’t share the same views on church/government relationships.
I listened to the full recordings of Al Mohler at the SBC Pastor’s Conference at the Convention in June of ‘06. Mohler and Dr. Paige Patterson discussed election in evangelism. There was very little difference between myself and Dr. Patterson who is not a Calvinist. In fact I learned just how much common ground Calvinists who are biblical Calvinists have with non-Calvinists.