MY ALLEGIANCE IS NOT TO T.U.L.I.P. (PART I)
%20copy.jpg)
“Why I Affirm the Five Doctrines Without Making Calvin My Creed”
By Akin Ojumu
Yesterday’s commentary, “God or Satan? The False Contradiction in David’s Census,” answered one of two questions sent to me by a reader of the African Plume blog and YouTube channel.
The other question was this: Do you subscribe to TULIP? In other words: Are you a Calvinist?
My answer is simple. Yes. And also: Not quite.
If the question is whether I believe the five doctrines commonly summarized by the acronym TULIP, then yes, I do.
If the question is whether John Calvin is my theological Pope, whether the Synod of Dort is my Vatican, whether Westminster is my Jerusalem, or whether Geneva is my Mecca, then absolutely not.
I am a Christian. That is the label that matters.
My allegiance is not to Calvin. It is not to Arminius (founder of Arminianism). It is not to Dort. It is not to Westminster. And it is certainly not to a botanical acronym invented long after the Apostles of Christ were dead.
My allegiance is to the Lord Jesus Christ. My authority is Scripture.
That distinction matters. Because theological tribalism has a bad habit of reversing the proper order.
First, people adopt a system. Then they put on the denominational spectacles. Then they march into Scripture searching for verses to baptize the system they already chose.
That is not how I approach theology. I do not put T-U-L-I-P on the table and then go Bible-hunting for five matching prooftexts.
That is theological ventriloquism. You decide what the Bible must say. Then you make the Bible say it.
No. I begin with Scripture. What does Scripture say about man? What does Scripture say about election? What did Christ actually accomplish at Calvary? How are sinners brought to faith? Are Christians kept to the end? Who keeps them to the end?
Where Scripture leads, I follow. If the destination happens to look Reformed, so be it. Calvin still does not get a vote.
T — TOTAL DEPRAVITY
The Bible’s diagnosis of fallen humanity is not flattering. Man is not spiritually neutral. He is not basically good but occasionally naughty. He is not a morally healthy person suffering from a temporary religious vitamin deficiency.
Scripture says he is fallen. Hostile. Blind. Enslaved. And spiritually dead.
Paul writes in:
Romans 3:10–12
“None is righteous, no, not one; no one understands; no one seeks for God.”
Not, many seek God. Not, most seek God. No one. NONE.
Romans 8:7–8 says the fleshly mind is hostile to God and cannot submit to Him.
Ephesians 2:1 does not describe fallen man as spiritually injured. Paul says he is: “Dead in the trespasses and sins.”
Dead. Not limping. Not coughing. Not spiritually under the weather. Dead.
Then Jesus says in:
John 6:44
“No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him.”
Notice the words.
Not, “will not.” But, Cannot.
Total Depravity does not mean every sinner is maximally wicked. It means sin has invaded the whole person. Mind. Will. Desires. Affections. Reasoning.
Man’s problem is not merely that he needs information. He needs transformation. He does not need a motivational speech. He needs resurrection.
U — UNCONDITIONAL ELECTION
Now comes the doctrine that makes human pride break out in hives.
I believe God chooses whom He saves according to His own sovereign purpose and grace.
Not according to human merit. Not according to good works. Not according to spiritual potential. And not because God looked down the tunnel of history, saw who would make the correct decision, and rewarded their superior wisdom.
That would make election God’s applause for human foresight.
Scripture says otherwise.
Ephesians 1:4–5
“He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world…”
And that He predestined us: “According to the purpose of his will.”
Romans 9 is even less accommodating to human boasting. Paul speaks of Jacob and Esau before either had been born. Before either had done anything good or bad.
Why?
“In order that God’s purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of him who calls.”
Romans 9:10-12
“And not only so, but also when Rebekah had conceived children by one man, our forefather Isaac, though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad—in order that God’s purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of him who calls— she was told, “The older will serve the younger.””
Then comes the hammer blow:
Romans 9:16
“So, then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy.”
That verse has ruined many sermons about autonomous free will.
Acts 13:48 is equally inconvenient:
Acts 13:48
“As many as were appointed to eternal life believed.”
Read that carefully.
It does not say: “As many as believed were appointed.”
It says: Those appointed believed.
Election does not trail behind faith holding a clipboard. Election precedes faith. Faith is not the cause of God’s choice. Faith is the fruit of God’s grace.
L — LIMITED ATONEMENT
And now we arrive at the petal that gives many people theological indigestion.
Limited Atonement, otherwise known as Particular Redemption.
The label itself creates unnecessary confusion. It does not mean Christ’s blood lacks value. It does not mean the Cross is weak. It does not mean the sacrifice of Christ is insufficient.
The issue is not the worth of Christ’s death. The issue is its design. What did Jesus actually accomplish?
Did Christ die merely to make salvation theoretically possible? Did He create a gigantic spiritual opportunity and then wait to see whether anybody would activate it? Did the Cross secure salvation? Or merely advertise it?
Scripture speaks in terms of accomplishment.
Matthew 1:21
“He will save His people from their sins.”
John 10:11
“The Good Shepherd lays down His life for the sheep.”
Ephesians 5:25
“Christ loved the Church and gave Himself up for her.”
Acts 20:28 speaks of:
Acts 20:28
“The Church of God, which He obtained with His own blood.”
Hebrews 9:12 says Christ entered the holy places by His blood:
Hebrews 9:12
“Thus securing an eternal redemption.”
Securing. Not attempting. Not offering. Not crossing His fingers. Securing.
Hebrews 10:14
“By a single offering He has perfected for all time those who are being sanctified.”
The Cross accomplished something.
Christ redeemed. Christ purchased. Christ reconciled. Christ perfected. Christ saved.
Yes, there are passages such as John 3:16, 1 Timothy 2:4–6, Hebrews 2:9, and 1 John 2:2 that non-Reformed Christians interpret differently.
That debate is real. But the Reformed argument is not that Christ’s sacrifice is too small for the world. The argument is that Christ’s death had a definite saving purpose.
The Cross was not God opening a spiritual supermarket and hoping customers would wander in.
Jesus came to save His people. And according to Scripture: He succeeded. That is why I affirm Total Depravity. That is why I affirm Unconditional Election. That is why I affirm Limited Atonement (Particular Redemption).
Not because Calvin whispered them into my ear. Not because Dort stamped them with ecclesiastical ink. And not because I have any emotional attachment to a Seventeenth-Century Dutch theological dispute.
I affirm them because I am persuaded that Scripture teaches them. And if Scripture teaches them, then the question is not whether Calvinism makes people uncomfortable.
The question is much simpler. What are you going to do with the text?
To be continued.
Thanks for taking time to explain your view. Your zeal is evident. In my inquiry, although i simply asked whether you subscribe to TULIP or not, you have gone the extra mile in providing Reasons for your position. Thanks. Akin, i would like to know how this life of yours began. Did you come-across some bible Teachers on radio? or how?
ReplyDeleteIndeed, Faith is the Fruit of Grace; we agree in a sense, yet you and i have a disagreement on it: ... how often have I longed to gather your children together as a hen covers her chicks under her wings, but you are UNWILLING (Matt 23v37) . Are there varying interpretations of 1John 2v2, ? Let me know how you interpret 1John 2v2.
Of course there's so much to be said regarding HOW Calvinists Arrived At This View. Are you aware that the Catholic Father AUGUSTINE is the Major Fountain of this view? e.g., Unconditional Election . Are you aware of the Massive Reliance on Augustine's Writings by men such as John Calvin and Luther? I wrote an article years ago titled "God Did Not Create Anyone For Hell" and it's still at my website.
My Apologies for diverting into Augustine. We can simply focus on Scripture on this matter.
ReplyDeleteI was re-visiting what you wrote yesterday about: God inciting/moving Dhavid to sin (2Sam 24v1), and the satanic spirit moving/inciting God (iyob 2v3) . As i responded under that commentary: i'm convinced from the Whole Counsel of God (Acts 20v27), that God Never Ordained/Establish Sin or Evil in that sense.
I have sent you a bit of verses on the following ISSUE and still have so many for you to consider regarding the Deficiency of Human Language/Expressions which Scripture uses: Gen 22v2, YHVH said: now I know that you fear God . Gen 18v21 . Gen 11v5 . Gen 4v16, as though God is not omnipresent and omniscient.
Akin, you know that, today, in the way we communicate, if we want to write here the charge against someone under capital punishment (death penalty), i think it would be more unified as most writers would simply quote the CHARGE (placed on the cross), but the New Testament Writers clearly have a different Mindset compared to how we write/communicate today, each of them gave something different for something SO SIMPLE to quote so that we don't know from the NT exactly (VERBATIM) what Pilate placed on that cross (although we have A General Idea which is sufficient for me and our Maker).
I posted the following under the commentary you gave yesterday about 2Sam 24v1 and 1Chron 21v1:
Hebrews 9v19-21, THE SCROLL and Tabernacle were sprinkled with God's Sacrificial Love, not just the people alone . What's the point i'm trying to make? Scripture is Trustworthy, however, it uses Deficient Human Language and expressions, therefore the need regarding being well-grounded in the Whole Counsel of God (Acts 20v27), which can take time especially because of things we have been taught wrongly by Pastors who misunderstood or misuse Scripture.
Scripture attempts to communicate phenomena that's beyond human language (2Cor 9v15, "indescribable gift" . Mark 4v30).
Romans 10v3 says that the Jews were "ignorant of God's righteousness", yet Scripture at-large says: not so (e.g., Romans 3v21).
Are you aware that Scripture teaches that God's Sacrificial Love was poured-out before anything was created? When was the satanic spirit defeated? at the cross? or as Revelation says: future, yet to come?
Are you aware of verses saying that: God came down from heaven to see what's happening on earth -- as though God is not omniscient/omnipresent.
John 14v23, We will COME and make Our home with such a person -- as though God is not omnipresent, in comparison to the better language/expression in Romans 10v6-8, Acts 17v27-28 (spoken to pagans).
1Tim 1v9 says that the Law was made as a deterrence against those who wish to take advantage of Grace in a wrong way, but is that the only reason why the ways of God have been revealed? Clearly, the righteous who desire to know the ways of God are blessed by the Law (Hebrews 10v16).
I know that people have ways of explaining those statements we read in Scripture such as: God REPENTED of the evil He wanted to bring on the people, or the one that says: God REGRETTED that He made humans (Gen 6), but i believe that we need to admit/acknowledge the fact that: Human Language and Expressions are Fallible in expressing these spiritual realities. The Solution is not in these words which even change based on various translations/versions. We have to catch the Spirit (or general idea) of those words although in some cases the words are exactly what needs to be taken (e.g., Acts 1v11-12 and Zechariah 14v4 are CLEAR about the future Glorious Appearing of the Lord on Mount Olives).
ReplyDeleteThere's a lot to say regarding TULIP . In your writing under Limited Atonement, you use Matt 1v21 in a way that Contradicts its NATURE, Context and Communication. The statement there is giving you a translation of YAH'SHUA.
ReplyDeleteMatt 1v21, "... you shall call His name Yah'Shua BECAUSE He will save His people from their sins” . Who taught you to read/interpret this as Primarily/Foundationally including Gentiles?? That's Contrary to the Teaching in Eph 2v11-20 and Romans 11 that Gentiles are IN-GRAFTS partaking of the Jewish Blessings . Matt 15v24 ... I was Not sent except to the lost sheep of Israel.
Those who formulated TULIP, heavily relied on Roman Catholic Augustine and they were all staunch in their Anti-Jewish Hatred and Replacement Theology, THAT'S A BIG PROBLEM THAT GIVES YOU A VIEW (Reading Glasses) That Distorts NewTestament Teaching.
Matthew 1:21
Delete“She will bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus, for He will save His people from their sins.”
Matthew immediately connects the birth of Christ with the prophecy of Isaiah:
Isaiah 7:14
“Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a Son, and shall call His name Immanuel.”
And Matthew explicitly tells us that this prophecy is fulfilled in the birth of Jesus:
Matthew 1:22
“All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had spoken by the prophet.”
The problem with your interpretation of Matthew 1:21 is that you appear to assume that the expression “His people” must refer exclusively to ethnic Jews.
But if that is what the text means, then you have created a rather serious theological conundrum for yourself.
Are you saying that Jesus came to save only Jews from their sins?
If so, what becomes of Gentile believers?
I assume you believe that Christ has saved you from your sins. But unless you are ethnically Jewish, you are a Gentile.
So which is it?
If “His people” in Matthew 1:21 means Jews and Jews only, then on your interpretation Christ did not come to save you.
You cannot simultaneously argue that “His people” is restricted exclusively to ethnic Israel and then turn around and claim salvation through the same Christ as a Gentile.
The New Testament simply does not permit that restriction.
Jesus is indeed Israel’s Messiah, but His redeemed people are not confined to ethnic Israel. His saving mission extends to people from every nation.
That is why Jesus says:
John 10:16
“I have other sheep that are not of this fold. I must bring them also.”
And Revelation describes those purchased by Christ as coming:
Revelation 5:9
“…from every tribe and language and people and nation.”
So Matthew 1:21 does not teach that Christ saves Jews while excluding Gentiles. It declares that Jesus will save His people from their sins—and the rest of the New Testament reveals the glorious scope of that people: Jews and Gentiles united in Christ.
If your interpretation requires Gentile Christians to become honorary Jews before Matthew 1:21 can apply to them, the deficiency is not in the text. The deficiency is your interpretation of the text.
In Ephesians 3, Paul talks about his insight into the “mystery” of Christ. This “mystery” is not secret spiritual knowledge, hidden codes, mystical experiences, or private revelation available only to spiritual elites.
DeleteThe mystery is this:
Ephesians 3:4–6
“When you read this, you can perceive my insight into the mystery of Christ, which was not made known to the sons of men in other generations as it has now been revealed to his holy Apostles and Prophets by the Spirit. This mystery is that the Gentiles are fellow heirs, members of the same body, and partakers of the promise in Christ Jesus through the Gospel.”
Paul defines the mystery in verse 6. Gentiles and Jews are united together in Christ as one people of God.
More specifically, Gentile believers are:
“fellow heirs” — they inherit the promises of salvation alongside believing Jews.
“members of the same body” — Jews and Gentiles belong to the one body of Christ.
“partakers of the promise in Christ Jesus” — Gentiles receive the same saving promises through the Gospel.
Ephesians 3:4-6 should put paid to the idea that Matthew 1:21 only applies to Jews.
Who taught you to read/interpret this as PRIMARILY/Foundationally including Gentiles??
ReplyDeleteIs that statement of mine saying Gentiles are not IN-GRAFTS partaking of the Jewish Blessings??
Matt 1v21, "... you shall call His name Yah'Shua BECAUSE He will save His people from their sins” . Who taught you to read/interpret this as PRIMARILY/Foundationally including Gentiles?? That's Contrary to the Teaching in Eph 2v11-20 and Romans 11 that Gentiles are IN-GRAFTS partaking of the Jewish Blessings . Matt 15v24 ... I WAS NOT SENT EXCEPT TO THE LOST SHEEP OF ISRAEL.
In shock, i wrote under your TULIP (Part 1): "Are there varying interpretations of 1John 2v2, ? Let me know how you interpret 1John 2v2".
I Got No Response. . . .