A friend of mine recently converted to a Reformed church, and has been discussing the "sense" of their theology recently.
The idea of most of TULIP(Calvinist summary of faith) goes against what I was taught, being raised in a Church of Christ(RM). Unconditional election seems to be a major hinge leading to the other points, and although he preaches them my friend cannot yet provide verses that support all of the points.
However, I did find one on my own. John 6:44- "No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him, and I will raise him up in the last day."
This seems to directly support the Calvinist idea that God directly chooses those that come to him, and there would be no free will involved in anything. The idea of no free will is a rather major point to me. Could anyone give other explanations, or support or refutations of TULIP? Thank y'all!
In Christ,
J
God bless, bro
I've been studying this for some time - and I confess the study isn't exactly of a scholarly nature (being no scholar myself). However in my studies I've come to certain conclusions that have yet to be adequately refuted or answered by anyone - at least to my satisfaction. Not all the following are my words or arguments exclusively, though I've adapted a couple and expanded on them with my own understanding and study.
It begins with several questions posed in the
Westminster Larger Catechism that form what I understand to be the foundation for the notions of free-will, predestination, and a host of other teachings of Calvinism with which I, and so many other Christians struggle. Two of those questions from the Catechism are:
Question 12: What are the decrees of God?
Answer: God's decrees are the wise, free, and holy acts of the counsel of his will, whereby, from all eternity, he has, for his own glory, unchangeably foreordained: Whatsoever comes to pass in time, especially concerning angels and men (Emphasis mine)
Question 13: What has God especially decreed concerning angels and men? Answer: God, by an eternal and immutable decree, out of his mere love, for the praise of his glorious grace, to be manifested in due time, has elected some angels to glory; and in Christ has chosen some men to eternal life, and the means thereof: and also, according to his sovereign power, and the unsearchable counsel of his own will (whereby he extends or withholds favor as he pleases), has passed by and foreordained the rest to dishonor and wrath, to be for their sin inflicted, to the praise of the glory of his justice. (Emphasis mine)
These two questions and their answers beg a number of questions by the inquiring Christian:
1) If the above are true, how is it possible for man to sin? If everything man does has been foreordained or decreed by God, and His decrees are immutable, how is it possible for man to sin (to "miss the mark" - Gk "hamartia"). In other words, if a man steals, or lusts, or lies (etc.) - God has, from eternity ordained he do so. How then can man miss the mark (sin) God has set for man?
2) If the above is true, how is it possible that God would immutably decree all men's actions, and yet expressly forbid some of them later? We know, for example, that God has forbid such things as lust, theft, lies, etc. - moreover we know we do them. How then is it that God would unchangeably decree something to occur, and then expressly forbid us to do it?
3) If the above is true, how is it possible that God changes His mind (or relents) on events that, from eternity He has unchangeably decreed? Consider Jonah and the Ninevites (Jonah 3:6-10). Consider David at Keilah (I Samuel 23:12f). Consider Hezekiah (2 Kings 20:1-6). Consider mankind in general (Genesis 6:5f). Or the Hebrews at Mt. Sinai or Jeremiah at the potter's house (Jeremiah 18:1-10). God clearly changes His mind.
4) If the above is true, how is it possible for man to sin in ways that never even entered God's mind? Consider the sons of Judah sacrificing their sons to the god Topheth - Jeremiah 7:31 and Jeremiah 19:5. If God unchangeably foreordains everything, how are we to explain the fact that some actions never even entered His mind?
5) If the above is true, how is it possible that God would attempt to persuade men, giving them choices in their behavior (with attendant consequences when they chose rightly or wrongly)? If the bible is anything, it is a history of God's repeated attempts to persuade men to behave certain ways and not behave in others. Cosnider the lists of blessings and curses in Deuteronomy 28 as but one example.
6) If the above is true, what restraint is there for "the elect" against condemning his fellow man as reprobate, as deserving of death, and from seeking to effect the same in the name of God? It was the "elect" of that day (or those who considered themselves thus) who viciously screamed "crucify Him, crucify Him!". And it was the "elect" (Saul) who stood approvingly over the corpse of Stephen, stoned to death as a heretic (the "unelect").
Consider John Calvin's own words:
"The enemies of God's predestination are stupid and ignorant, and the devil hath plucked out their eyes."
"Such men fight against the Holy Ghost like mad beasts and endeavor to abolish the holy Scripture. There is more honesty in the Paposts than in these men; for the doctrine of the Papists is a great deal better, more holy, and more agreeable to the sacred Scriptures, than the doctrin of those vile and wicked men, who cast down God's holy election - these dogs that bark at it and swine that root it up."
"The devil hath no fitter instruments than those who fight against predestination."
- Calvin's sermons...
7) Finally, If the above is true, how is it possible to enforce our own "rule of law," our secular laws? Our own legal system derives its sanction to punish, incarcerate, or fine a man based on the premise that man, not God, is responsible for his actions and for the decisions that lead up to those actions. In other words, our legal system functions on the basis that man is a volitional being, capable of rational choice and accountable to society for the choices he makes.
Consider that Paul points out that it is God's decree that such authority be given to man (Romans 13:1ff), that God has therefore decreed that our secular legal system function on the basis of man's accountability for his own volitional choices.
In other words, our legal system does not permit a man to form a defense by pleading "God made me do it."
If such a plea were permissible, then no law would be enforceable.
I've drawn my own conclusions regarding the above moral code set forth by Calvinism. In absence of adequate answers to the above, I have to summarize that moral code thus:
If man, a creation by God's decree, created in His image, yet without volition in his behavior is:
- Unchangeably foreordained to behave in manners decreed solely by God,
- Legally bound by God NOT to behave in certain manners,
- Yet judged guilty (responsible, accountable) when he DOES behave in a manner apart from his choosing - which God decreed, yet which God also forbid,
...then I fail to see how God is either loving, let alone just. I am forced to conclude such a moral code and doctrine utterly absurd and in complete disharmony with the character and actions of God as He has revealed Himself in the Holy Scripture.
While Christians recoil at such a doctrine, such an unjust moral code is not lost on non-Christians either. Consider what Ayn Rand had to say in this regard - "
A sin without volition is a slap at morality and an insolent contradiction in terms; that which is outside the possibility of choice is outside the province of morality." Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged - pg 1025.
