For various reasons, I never intended to write on Calvinism. One of the biggest reasons is that I refused to accept the premise that Calvinism is a thing. It's not so weird when you consider that Spurgeon himself did not like the label as he was uncomfortable putting a "label" on what was simply what the Bible says. I have always felt similar. Why use a man's (no less a sinner than the rest of us) name on Biblical truth. If it's in the Bible it needs no such "adornment", if it's not, call it anything you like, because it doesn't concern us. Also, while I'm name dropping, Spurgeon also stated that he felt there was no doubt that he would meet John Wesley in heaven in spite of their polar opposite views on Calvinism and Arminianism. So, what does that tell us? Well, it tells me that far too many people, waste far too much time and energy debating these issues. I would venture to say that Spurgeon's attitude toward Wesley is a tacit admission of the folly of it all! If either of these giants of the faith felt a proper understanding of these issues was crucial to one's salvation; they would have not been timid to say so. I know Spurgeon never did, and I don't think Wesley did either.
A recent epiphany compels me to break my silence on the subject, especially as it relates to the U and L in TULIP; unconditional election/limited atonement. As most Christians, I can get on board with the other letters in the acronym, to a greater or lesser degree, but unconditional election (salvation not available for all) and limited atonement (Christ only died for the elect) are not only the most disagreeable concepts; I'm not convinced they're scripturally without question. I'm not disputing election is in the Bible, the problem comes when knowing when to apply the term properly (i.e., who are the elect). In addition, even if you settle this question in your mind; there is another one just as pondersome: can only the elect be saved? That is to say, you have elect and you have saved; and all elect people are saved, but not all saved people are elect. For instance, if you interpret Israel as the elect, then clearly one doesn't have to be elect to be saved (the Gentiles grafted in, right?).
So, here's the epiphany: if only the elect can be saved, what do you do with the "unelect" who assume they can't be saved and are bound for Hell? Pay close attention. I understand as Believers we are not to assume someone's election or not and share our faith to all. I'm looking at this from a different perspective then I've ever heard. The perspective of the other person's assumption of the state of their relationship to God. If unconditional election/limited atonement are facts, Biblically and otherwise (like gravity), then a reprobate could justify living in willful sin, even to the degree of harming others. Why? Because they could (due to their heinous lifestyle) assume that they're not elect and bound for Hell anyway, so why not do as they please? You might state that not many people know much about Calvinism, let alone TULIP, but there are a lot of unsaved people who have been in enough churches to pick up just enough information to muddle things. Someone who has heard the concept of unconditional election/limited atonement (especially in a passing or superficial manner) could easily fall into a pretty hopeless state. If great minds like Spurgeon and Wesley (amongst many others) can't reach a consensus on this, how can we expect those not as gifted (me and most of the population) to be able convince someone that their stance is wrong? If unconditional election/limited atonement is a thing, it applies to someone; maybe me. The best way to avoid that hindrance to salvation is to not teach it. If you think John 3:16; it's easy.
Going through TULIP, let me illustrate why U and L are problematic over-complications of the Gospel.
Total Depravity: for my money, the most undeniable concept that is supported by the Bible. We're all born hopelessly lost due to Adam's fall. But I tend to side with those that don't equate total depravity with an inability to respond to the Holy Spirit.
Unconditional Election: kind of a mixed bag on this one. God showers us with unmerited Grace; not based on any conditions we meet. However, the Arminian view that God through his omniscience knows who will choose and therefore they are elect (conditional) is plausible.
Limited Atonement: Don't buy that God's atonement is limited in any way (intent or effect). He intended it for all and it's effectual for all, but you have to accept the gift.
Irresistible Grace: Again, can go either way depending on definitions, but lean toward ability to reject God.
Perseverance of Saints: If total depravity is the one I'm most convinced of, this is the one where I'm most ambivalent, because either God keeps us or we "run the race" to the end, and we're good. It's a win/win.
The common denominator between T,I,and P is that they don't question God's love for all mankind as U and L do (strictly interpreted). We're all totally depraved (T), so we start from the same point. No favoritism here. Whether God's Grace is irresistible (I) or not is also universal. It's one or the other for everyone. However, if God's Grace is irresistible, we can only be referring to particular grace (elect). If common grace were irresistible, all would be saved (universalism). Based on these observations; grace is resistible. Perseverance (P) is another easy one in my view. If you're a true Believer, God will "automatically" keep you unto salvation, or if a Believer must work out their salvation (works/fruit required) I'm okay with that as any true convert who loves the Lord will keep his commandments. But unconditional election and limited atonement are two sides of the same coin and are at odds with the "whosoever" of John 3:16. And, if you're not one of the "whosoever", T,I, and P are moot. If you're not elect (saved as part of those atoned for, limited), then it doesn't matter whether you're depraved, able to resist Grace, or persevere. Essentially, the only concepts that are worth debating are U/L, because if they are true, then the others are just superfluous fluff. Even if they aren't true TIP are really still more word games or mental gymnastics, then solid Biblical essentials one must accept totally. One could take the view that man is mostly depraved, able to resist God's offer, and could lose their salvation; and still believe that Jesus "so loves the world". Accepting U/L makes believing in a loving God a tough sell, especially focusing on L. U is more palatable if you believe that the saved can be classified into two categories: the elect, and the non-elect; which I do based on the following copied verbatim from a comparison chart on Calvinism/Arminianism:
Irresistible Grace or Effectual Calling - in addition to the outward general call to salvation which is made to everyone who hears the gospel, the Holy Spirit extends to the elect a special inward call that inevitably brings them to salvation. The external call (which is made to all without distinction, can be, and often is, rejected; whereas the internal call (which is made only to the elect) cannot be rejected: it always results in conversion. By means of this special call the spirit irresistibly draws sinners to Christ.
Did you notice the word, often, above? Stating that external calling often is rejected, is also saying, sometimes it is accepted. Ipso facto, you have two categories of saved people; those who must respond to inward calling (elect), and those who choose to respond to external calling (saved, but not elect).
So, there it is: my two-cents worth on Calvinism. Which, like anything else I've read on the subject, is over-priced. It seems like so much fool's gold, as these views are everywhere and seem pretty worthless. It's not enough that everyone who follows Jesus just can't be called those of the Way, or Christians, or anything that labels them as hearers and doers of the Word of God. So we have Lutherans, Protestants, Baptists, etc. If that's not bad enough, we have to further divide along other lines such as Calvinism/Arminianism, and others. Anything that distracts from realizing you are a lost sinner in need of Jesus, who died on the Cross and will
save anyone who believes and repents, is a win for Satan.
In the words of Ferris Bueller, "...isms, in my opinion, are not good". I concur wholeheartedly, especially as it relates to Calvinism/Arminianism.
