Calvin.JPG
[Hide] (465KB, 1421x936) Ever since shortly after I left the church of Rome I have been drawn to the Reformed tradition as the traditional and scholarly wing of the fundamentalist movement. Calvinist theologians have been at the forefront of defining (such as in The Fundamentals or the Chicago Statement on Inerrancy) and giving the reasons (presuppositional apologetics, Reformed epistemology) for our faith in an age of "reason". I was blessed especially by the ministry of Dr. James White, especially in his book the Potter's Freedom (which I highly recommend) in showing me the doctrines of grace, though the Reformed tradition is much more than the 5 points of Calvinism. To give a short answer, the reason why I'm Reformed is because I believe everything the bible says. I would think it would be simple to just believe everything God said, but apparently the vast majority of people (even Christians today) find it very difficult.
The TULIP acrostic is much younger than the doctrines it represents, and even those 5 points were first formally stated as such in the 17th century at the Synod of Dort. But while they can cause confusion (especially the L) the doctrines have been taught since the beginning of the Reformation, and much earlier than that. Since by far the most popular argument against the doctrines of grace is the strawman fallacy, I want to explain each point to you and help you see that you may just believe them already.
>Total Depravity
This does NOT mean that men are as bad as they possibly could be. In fact, unbelievers are sometimes so showered in common grace that we perceive them as being "better" than many Christians. What this doctrine does mean is that there is no kernel of good hidden deep within man that enables him to cooperate with the grace of God, but that he is according to nature so far gone that he would never, under any circumstances, under his own volition reconcile with his creator and submit to the rule of God, so that when he does so it is a true divine miracle changing the direction of his heart with as much force as would change the trajectory of the earth. For "there is none who does good, no one who seeks after God, no not even one".
>Unconditional Election
This doctrine is very literally named, as it means that those blessed few among the great crowd of evil whom God shall save have not been chosen (or "elected") because they rose above and satisfied some condition of being so (such as accruing merit and avoiding mortal sin, or choosing to embrace the gospel message) but only because of the good pleasure of God, who has mercy on whom He will have mercy according to His plans to the praise of His glorious grace. It does not mean His selection is arbitrary, but the reasons for His determination are never that the elect merited salvation more than the reprobate. Often this doctrine is criticized as embodying pride, or as giving the Calvinist sinful pride. Nothing could be more scandalous or further from the truth. For I know that I am absolutely no better than the reprobate, and there was nothing about me which made me more desirable than the reprobate, but I can look at every single one of them as they march happily into the maw of hell screeching their hatred of God and say "there go I but for the grace of God".
>Limited Atonement
This is perhaps the least well understood doctrine, regrettably in large part due to its unfortunate naming to create the TULIP acrostic. The limitation which is referenced is not one of efficiency but of scope, that is, Christ's death was certainly sufficient to save all men who will ever exist, but it was not His intention do so. But this doctrine is much more about what Christ has accomplished than what He has not. To deny this doctrine is to deny that Christ saved those for whom He died, and to assert that His sacrifice merely enabled them to be saved by some other convoluted means, which seems a much more pernicious limitation. For what this doctrine really means is that Christ accomplished the salvation of the elect upon the cross, so that every one of them can say "I have been crucified with Christ. It is now not I who lives, but Christ who lives in me. And the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself for me". Can the reprobate say this? Can he climb up on the parapets of hell, scream out his hatred of God, and say "I have been crucified with Christ"? Was it for a nameless, faceless mass of humanity that Christ died, to enable them to save themselves if they so desired, or did the Son of God love me and give Himself for me?
>Irresistible Grace
This doctrine is also named literally, as it means that the grace of God cannot be resisted by the elect, that is, they do not have the power to reject His powerful resurrecting grace, but the Spirit changes their hearts to make of them sons of God. They are a new creation, not the same wicked creature which once despised his maker, but they are freed from slavery to sin, so that they may flee with tears to the mercy of Christ, and kneel without hesitation to His Lordship. This is what the Lord meant when He said, "you must be born again".
>Perseverance of the Saints
The meaning of this is that those whom God has invested His grace into shall not be spoiled, but provide a return. It is the promise of hope and surety of salvation for those who have the Spirit of God, that He will keep us and never throw us back into the darkness, but "He is the down payment of our salvation". How could they ever fall away when He is the one who sustains them and has raised them higher than Adam was, for "none can snatch them out of my hand"?