Thursday, October 29, 2009
Calvinism, According to Custardy
I like this guy's explanation of TULIP: http://custardy.blogspot.com/2009/10/calvinism.html. Of the few who read my blog, I think the majority are Reformed. What do you all think of it?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
5 comments:
I will not agree on it. I assume precise post. Particularly the title-deed attracted me to be familiar with the intact story.
I think he compromises too far on some of his statements. The "What it shouldn't mean" that he writes for Limited Atonement is somewhat confusing. Is he saying that Calvin didn't believe Jesus atoned only for an elect? Or that there's no point evangelizing since Jesus died only for an elect who will come to him anyway? I think the truth is Calvin believed that Jesus atoned for an elect. But that doesn't mean there is any way to know who is elect though, until the word is preached and the elect respond. God sends Christians to preach the gospel so that the elect might hear it.
Also, the "What it shouldn't mean" for Irresistible Grace, I think what he wrote is precisely what it should mean. I mean, the beauty of Irresistible Grace is that Jesus can save anyone, even in spite of themselves. He draw to himself those who are completely opposed to him. The story of Saul in Acts is the epitome of this.
I think this post was, in general, very good at clearing up some misconceptions, but I also think it compromised too much in places, and ended up misrepresenting Calvin on a couple points.
Regarding limited atonement, I think what he was saying is exactly what you are saying; the "certain clear" means certain and clear to us or some other Christians, not certain and clear to God. He just didn't make it clear.
And I'll stand by his "What it shouldn't mean" for Irresistible Grace. For all appearances, Saul didn't come to Christ kicking and screaming, literally or figuratively. God used some strong persuasion, but there's nothing in Acts to suggest that Saul started serving Jesus against his will.
And yet Saul did more than come to Christ kicking and screaming, he actually opposed Christianity to the degree that he participated in the stoning of Stephen, Acts 7:58. Isn't the point of irresistible grace that the person's will can and does change as a result of irresistible grace? Even a change as far from "kicking and screaming' to complete worship? It wasn't as though Saul were neutral, just standing by objectively contemplating the claims of Christ beforehand. And if he were, we wouldn't call God's grace irresistible in his case, but rather look inside of Paul to see where he eventually made a decision to follow. It is precisely because the change came from outside of Paul (and outside of his will) that it can be said to be God's irresistible grace.
The Irresistible Grace section may need tweaking. Otherwise, not too bad.
Post a Comment