So here’s the deal: I’m not really a five-point Calvinist. I debate the whole limited atonement thing. I’ve not made up my mind on it, but I sure keep turning to unlimited atonement in my study of Scripture and my reflection on the nature of God shown there. I’m surely a four point Calvinist, insofar as I see the point of the concepts of Total Depravity, divine Unconditional Election, God’s Irresistible Grace (though this is complex, and always needs some conversation about the freedom/bondage of the will…cue Luther) and the Perseverance of the Saints. These all point to a rather low anthropology and a rather high Christology, which I hold. Justification by faith through grace and all that. I am thoroughly protestant here, and deeply reformed.
But that limited atonement matter always catches me. See, I think God’s graceful actions on the Cross were not limited in intent; Christ died for everyone. This either makes me something close to an Amyraldist, or a five-and-a-half point Calvinist, depending on why we think some people resist the grace of God. Sometimes I think Arminus deserves a hearing. Point is: the concepts of limited vs. unlimited atonement each have biblical foundations, and even with a totally deprived humanity and an all sovereign God, there is something about God limiting God’s grace that doesn’t jive with God’s entire project. I get humans somehow rejecting that grace (see above on total depravity, and Calvin on the human predilection for idols). But I think God intends salvation for everyone. At least as I read it in the life, Death, and Resurrection of Jesus Christ. Those wikipedia links offer something of the debate between the two, along with some scriptural proof texts on both sides if that floats your boat.
Calvin, it is often pointed out, never formulated his thinking with the ostensible “doctrines of Calvinism” that get labeled as TULIP. They came from the Synod of Dort. Dort is an important part of reformed history, for sure, but it is not synonymous with Calvinism, with Reformed theology or doctrine. Reformed theology is much more than that, and diverse on this aspect, too.
Adhering to Dort is not in the Book of Order anywhere (pdf). Its not in our confessions that Dort’s canons are an essential of reformed theology. I didn’t take an ordination pledge to uphold the canons of Dort as a doctrine of the church.
But there are many some Presbyterians, mainly those who are “conservative,” or “classical,” or “traditional,” who are TULIP calvinists. And they certainly fit under the Presbyterian tent. Its a clear branch of reformed thinking, not the entire river.
So it gets my attention when my brother in Christ argues that, in fact, TULIP is part of the essential doctrines of the church that he, and others, think must be at the heart of church “renewal”:
The words Presbyterian and Reformed also carry with them certain connotations – so much so that the use of these words without the underlying beliefs they describe is dishonest. For example, Protestant doctrine by definition includes the five ‘solas’ – Scripture alone, for the glory of God alone, by Christ’s work alone, by grace alone, by faith alone. These are not random observations, cute Latin slogans unimportant to the Reformation – they are the Reformation. Similarly, Reformed doctrine by definition includes total depravity, unconditional election, limited atonement, irresistible grace, and perseverance of the saints. One may quibble on the words, on shades of meaning, but to claim the decision of the Synod of Dort contains only minor points of Reformed theology beggars credibility. It is a question of truth in labeling. Christian indicates certain things; Reformed indicates certain things; Presbyterian indicates certain things. Whether or not members of the Presbyterian Church (USA) desire to affirm traditional Presbyterian doctrines, their use of the name indicates a relationship to those doctrines. It is nonsensical to retain the name and ditch the meaning of the name – though this has clearly happened.
(I’d commend to anyone interested in the struggle going on in the PCUSA to read Will Spotts’ series on reform in the church. A good summary of which, with pointers to the original posts, he offers here. A few quick asides: I know that this is not the main, principle, or sole basis for the call to reform, and I don’t mean to lift it up as such. I’m picking out one small part of a long and complex post. And I should stress that I admire much about the man who wrote this and other meditations, and respect his integrity, advocacy, and faith greatly. … And if, like me, you don’t call yourself a ‘traditional’ Presbyterian, you need to know what this major voice on that side is saying. There’s actually a good chunk in there that I think is worthy of approval.)
So here we are at the heart of the matter: at least this “traditional” presbyterian is making a push for a set of doctrines he thinks are essentially Presbyterian, but which I clearly differ from in a few, but important, aspects. I can only gather that if he had his way, our denomination wouldn’t really have me as a pastor. Me, I think our church is big enough to allow us both in. But that’s the issue in a nutshell, isn’t it. Ecclesiology. What is the nature of this church: is the tent small, or is it bigger? Maybe that mirrors the debate over that pesky L in TULIP: is the extent of God’s atonement intended to be small, or is it intended to be bigger?
When we get down to it, I think our differences come down in large measure to differences in our understanding of what the church really is and should be. Our differences are ecclesiological. And I’m afraid, ultimately, that this denomination’s vast center is less about requiring everyone to adhere to fundamentals that aren’t really essential to reformed doctrine. Those five solas, as essential to protestantism, are essential. Reformed doctrine points to the Sovereignty of God, the seriousness of human sin and the abundance of Divine Grace, the covenantal body that is drawn together around the Word proclaimed and the sacraments rightly administered, the election to service not just to salvation. But we aren’t a denomination that requires everyone to be subscribers to Dort. Sorry. Its not a question of membership or of our ordination vows. And it shouldn’t be.
Or if it becomes a part, I guess I’d be something else. But for now, I remain proudly Presbyterian.
will spotts says
Hi Kairos.
Thanks for the link and your comments on the subject.
Sometimes when writing a post, I’m not as clear as I should be – in spite (or because) of the length or complexity of the post.
First, I certainly did not mean to suggest that Dort was *the* content of ‘Reformed’ doctrine — Just that Dort can’t be ignored when talking about ‘Reformed’. Obviously there are many elements of ‘Reformed’. Dort only addresses a few of them, and if that were all there were, it would be a poor exposistion. That said, the concept of limited atonement is also espoused in the Westminster Larger Catechism and Confession. (More precisely, the concept is a logical conclusion from Westminster — obviously the phrases are not.)
You are correct in that I do happen to be a “five pointer”, but I can easily see the difficulty one would have with limited atonement. I also see that the wording of some of these can in itself be an obstacle (beyond the debate about the actual concepts).
You are correct that ecclesiology is a major issue here – though it is not the only one. However, one statement you make does not quite represent my *intent*. ‘I can only gather that if he had his way, our denomination wouldn’t really have me as a pastor.’ I would point out that there is a difference between advocating for specific doctrines and requiring subscription to them. Some (broadly, Christian and Protestant) doctrines already are somewhat subscriptionist in the sense that one would be very hard pressed to affirmm ordination vows and not accept them. Other ‘traditional’ doctrines do not fall into the same category. Aside from anything else, only minorities within the PC(USA) hold these doctrines. Even were that not the case, there should not be a system that prevents or hinders Scriptural argument on points of doctrine.
kairos says
Hi Will. Thanks for your thoughts here. I was trying myself to be clear that this one part of your lengthy posts on which I was offering critique was just a small part, and that you had more there about ‘reformed’ doctrine.
Also, I’m aware how Westminster hints (maybe that’s too weak a word) towards limited atonement, and the debate over multiple confessions impacting this, etc. I probably should have nodded to that in the original post.
On this:
I would point out that there is a difference between advocating for specific doctrines and requiring subscription to them. Some (broadly, Christian and Protestant) doctrines already are somewhat subscriptionist in the sense that one would be very hard pressed to affirmm ordination vows and not accept them. Other ‘traditional’ doctrines do not fall into the same category. Aside from anything else, only minorities within the PC(USA) hold these doctrines. Even were that not the case, there should not be a system that prevents or hinders Scriptural argument on points of doctrine.
This is very helpful to read. I appreciate your clarification, and I can only concur…
Peace to you this Advent…
Mark says
I’m as lost as you are on limited atonement.
I feel the pull between “there are many paths to God” and the idea that *I* (and by extrapolation Presbyterians) have the right answer. I think what it comes down to is the degree of certainty that you have about your beliefs.
I like to state it this way: I think that my beliefs are correct. However, I don’t KNOW that my beliefs are correct. You can’t know that – only God knows that (or those that He’s let in on the secret, who aren’t on Earth). That leaves open the possibility that you, or the guy down the street, or the guy on the other side of the world is more right than I am about the nature of God and related beliefs. Since my beliefs include the importance of humility, it is a sin to state that I’m more right than they are – I can only say that I *think* I’m more right than they are.
The affects evangelism as well. I prefer an evangelistic style that says “Here is what I believe. You can believe it too, and join us. Or not.” rather than “You must believe what I believe or God will get you later”.
Somebody tell me whether or not the PCUSA tent is big enough for me. My congregation seems to think so (having just received me back into the fold) but it seems like others don’t agree.
will spotts says
Kairos – thought you might be interested in Rev. James Ayers’s Q&A column in this month’s Presbyterians Today – it is on Dort. http://www.pcusa.org/today/department/q-a/q-a.htm
kairos says
Thanks, Will. I appreciate your directing me there….