It is important to know before embarking on a serious study of Calvinism that Calvinism goes by various names.
Sometimes it is called “The Doctrines of Grace” and other times it is referred to as “Reformed Theology.”
This sort of terminology reveals, in my opinion, the pride and arrogance of some Calvinists,for despite the claims of some Calvinists, many people who are not Calvinists still believe in grace, and not all the Reformers were Calvinistic.
Calvinists also like to claim that Calvinism is equivalent to the gospel, and that there is no such thing as biblical Christianity that is not Calvinistic. All I can do is shake my head at such statements…
Anyway, you should know that if you hear people talking about “the Doctrines of Grace” or “Reformed Theology” they are probably referring to Calvinism.
Nevertheless, I believe it is inaccurate for Calvinists to attempt to appropriate the words “grace” and “reformed” for their own system of theology, especially when, in my opinion, many Calvinists know less of grace than their opponents, and numerous others have stopped seeking further theological reformation.
Though I am not a Calvinist, I hold to radical, outrageous, scandalous grace (a grace which is more gracious than the grace of many Calvinists), and I believe that as fallen and sinful human beings, we should always be about the work of reforming ourselves and our theology and never consider ourselves fully reformed.
So despite the tendency of some to refer to Calvinism as “The Doctrines of Grace” or “Reformed Theology,” I reject both titles as misleading and inaccurate.
In the posts that follow I hope to show that while I am not a Calvinist, I stand fully within the Reformation emphases of grace, faith, Jesus Christ, Scripture, and the glory of God.
Though I have sometimes joked that I am a two-and-a-half point Calvinist, it is only because I hold to half of each point of Calvinism, which is really no Calvinism at all.
I believe in depravity, but not total depravity.
I believe in election, but not unconditional election.
I believe in the atonement, but not limited atonement.
I believe in grace, but not irresistible grace.
I believe we are saints, but not in the perseverance of the saints.
Well of course people like to grant themselves big, authority-engendering names!
Where I live, it’s just one country in the Americas, but I like to call my country “America.” What kind of faith my church has, it’s just one sect with doctrinal and temporal distinctives, but we consider those most like us, most “Christian.” Our specific interpretations, we call those “Biblical.” Teachings and moralities that best align, those are “Godly.”
Often people are underexposed. Often people fear the outsider. We want identity, significance, and more.
These are just common human tendencies and the sloppy (or intentionally commandeering) usage of positive and broad words occurs across many spheres–social, political, religious, academic, professional, etc.
One shouldn’t be all that bothered that Calvinists self-adhere “Reformed” and “grace.”
As far as being a 2.5 point Calvinist, that’s being a bit cheeky. Kindly consider the following. Some ideas about what things are center on their boundaries, while others center on their centers. As an example, what is a bird? By focusing on the boundaries, we might think of wings and feathers and two legs and eggs. We might think of defining elements to create clear delineation between what is in and what is out. In contrast, by defining by centers we might think of something like things like a bluejay or a robin. In this view, a woodpecker is “more” a bird than an ostrich. This is not unrelated to why a bat’s a bird in the Bible. Also, biology itself isn’t based upon distinct Platonic types despite our mental constructs for modeling it.
So here’s the thing on this. Calvinism and its pointy points is centered in a foundational ontology that is based upon defining things based upon their boundaries. This is why this is to the implicitly Platonic idealist “no Calvinism at all.”
There’s an underlying set of assumptions about the world that have been present within this set of thread of Western thoughts that weren’t necessarily the way the Bible’s authors thought. They’re also not necessarily the best possible modeling of the way that the world is in many scenarios.
Well put! You raise many philosophical and foundational issues that many do not consider in such debates around Calvinism (and other theological debates).
If salvation is “all of grace,” then it is only by the power of God that saints would persevere at all, much less be saved at all.
Right, but what kind of power is the power of God? Is it the kind of power that must be in absolute control of every detail, OR is it the kind of the power that is so wise and powerful, that it can truly give away power to free creatures?
Jeremy, arrogance is a product of pride. And much of what you say about the ‘Reformed’ and/or ‘Calvanist’ is spot on. Though I identify as an Armenian, some of my favorite preachers and/or theologians are Calvanist. I have often wondered if Calvin would have identified himself as a Calvanist. In dealing with many Calvanist ( my brother is one ) they tend to be Calvanist in theory and otherwise in practice.
Yes, Tony. I struggle with arrogance and pride all the time as well. Anyway, I agree about the theory vs. practice. Of course, much of theology is like this. I have many areas currently in my life where I believe one thing (and write about it on this blog), but do something else in my daily practice. …I’m working on it though!
Knowing God’s love for us as closely as possible (like the best parent imaginable- only infinitely more) by beholding Jesus by the Spirit, enabling us to love Him & enjoy Him, is God’s primary desire.
Promoting His glory is very secondary.
Seeing grace more clearly is both what allows this and what happens as a result.
TULIP makes grace exclusive and God is an inclusive God.
I don’t know what allows some to believe or what happens to those who don’t.
I believe that if one is born from above, and this can only be known to them and God he is saved eternally.
We must remember that everything we know about the highest goodness,love and justice comes from God.
Any doctrine which plainly depicts God as being less in these essential characteristics than we are is flawed at best.
Blessings.
So.. You think we are in a fallen state ? How is that different from total depravity ?
Maybe you only meant that we are not in the same state has Adam and Eve because they were innocent before eating the fruit.. Well if it’s the sae, i think it goes without saying :^)
There are room to argue all of the above; however, the idea of total depravity speaks to the sense that all of man’s faculty have been tainted by his sin and he does not have the power or the will to seek a after God and his righteousness. Furthermore, he cannot please God of himself or by himself unless God intervenes in his life. He is cable of doing moral good but even his good pours out of a corrupted nature that easily led to pride and arrogance. I believe more research is needed before concluding that total depravity is outrageous; check with Eph: 2:1 or take a serious look at the cultural milieu that impacting on human decision making.