“…we trust in the living God, who is [the] Savior of all men, especially of those who believe.” 1 Timothy 4:10b
Brain Cramps
Over the past ten years of my life as a follower of Jesus perhaps no theological category has caused me to spend hours reading, thinking, and processing as much as the category of Soteriology. Soteriology is the study of salvation. More specifically, it is the study of what we might call the fine print of salvation. Basic soteriology is what unifies all born-again Christians as the universal church. Basic soteriology simply states the simple gospel. It is the truth that though all people are sinners we can be saved by grace alone, through faith alone, in the Jesus Christ of the Bible alone. Basic soteriology affirms the basic concepts of the gospel message.
But beyond the basic truth of the simple gospel the systematic theology category of soteriology goes much deeper. It discusses such things as the order of the decrees of God in salvation. It discusses the place of divine election and sovereignty and their relationship to human responsibility in the salvation of people. Does God choose us? Do we choose God? Is it both? Soteriology addresses the extensiveness and intensiveness of the effects of sin and the curse in the lives of human beings. Did man lose free-will in becoming a sinner or does he retain free moral agency as God’s image-bearer? Soteriology addresses the extent of the atonement of the cross of Christ on behalf of human beings. Did Jesus die for every individual sinner or only the elect who ultimately become believers? Soteriology address the application of redemption in the lives of God’s people. Do we exercise faith through which we become born-again, or does God make us born-again so that we exercise faith? Soteriology addresses the security of the believer in Christ. If I am born-again does God keep me saved or do I? Can I lose my salvation through habitual sinning after coming to Jesus, or does the grace of God and work of the Holy Spirit cause me to persevere ultimately faithful until I see Jesus face to face?
My Early Soteriological Journey
Early on in my Christian experience I was discipled in what would be considered a Reformed church. The first Bible study I attended of any kind was a study through eminent Reformed theologian R.C. Sproul’s book Chosen by God. Needless to say, looking back that probably wasn’t the most helpful study I could’ve engaged in as a new Christian given the gravity and meaty nature of the topics that book articulates. Non-the-less, that study and subsequent reading on the subject over the next few years resulted in my becoming an avid and, I would say, militant Five Point Calvinist. A Five Point Calvinist is one who adheres to all Five Points of the acrostic TULIP which describe what most today consider the finer points of Reformed Soteriology. In short the Five Points teach as follows:
Total Depravity: As a result of the curse on mankind which we have partaken of due to our willful rebellion against God in Adam, all mankind is depraved, or completely sinful. The effect of sin in our lives is not merely extensive though, it is also intensive and destroys the freedom of the will in humans. Mankind is in a state of total inability and cannot trust in the gospel nor does he desire to do so. But for the elect God graciously softens their hearts and removes the barrier of total inability that they might see their need for Him and trust in the gospel.
Unconditional Election: God chooses whom He will save and whom He won’t simply in accordance with His own pleasure and plans without consideration of what man would or wouldn’t, could or couldn’t choose when presented with the gospel message.
Limited Atonement: Jesus did not die for every individual sinner in a saving way. Rather, only those whom God unconditionally elected to salvation in eternity past have their sins atoned for savingly by Jesus on the cross.
Irresistible Grace: All those whom God unconditionally elected and provided atonement for in the cross of Christ will be saved through the irresistible call of the Holy Spirit. God is able to overcome even the hardest heart and bring the spiritually dead sinner to faith.
A sub-doctrine of Irresistible Grace is the Reformed understanding of the doctrine of Monergistic Regeneration. This doctrine is summarized by R.C. Sproul this way: “We do not believe in order to be born-again. We are born-again in order that we may believe.” Simply put, this doctrine teaches that God makes people new creations before they ever exercise or express faith in the gospel. When someone responds to the gospel in faith it is because God has already done a secret work in their heart bringing them to spiritual life and saved them.
Perseverance of the Saints: All whom God unconditionally elected in eternity past, made atonement for on the cross, and who are born-again through the irresistible work of the Holy Spirit will persevere in faith in Christ till death or the Second Coming. Of all who are found, none will be lost. It is argued that if we didn’t choose to be saved then we cannot choose to be unsaved either.
Soteriology in the Middle
Whereas in the past I would’ve preached and been able to affirm my whole-hearted agreement with the above declarations, today I’m in a different place. To be sure I see a lot of value in some of the statements above. But there are a couple key areas of disagreement I have with some of the propositions of Five Point Calvinism. If you were to attend a Refuge Distinctives class at our church you’d hear us say in regard to our theological streams that we are Evangelical, Missional, and Moderate. On the Moderate point one of the things we are getting at is that we are neither Five Point Calvinists or what is often seen as the only other option, Five Point Arminians. Instead, we are moderate. We are in the middle of these two systems of soteriology. We say this because though we would affirm the basic concepts of Total Depravity and Perseverance of the Saints for instance, we particularly would disagree with Limited Atonement and Irresistible Grace.
Something Just Isn’t Right
Theses points have become to me the most troubling of the Five Points in recent months. I remember the first time I heard those words, “We do not believe in order to be born-again. We are born-again in order that we may believe.” Even as a new Christian they just didn’t feel right. I had heard people say that to be saved I needed to trust in Jesus. I had thought I’d read that in the Bible. But this doctrine seemed to say that I trusted in Jesus because I’d been irresistibly saved without my knowledge or choice in anyway before I exercised or expressed faith in Jesus. I also remember hearing for the first time that if you looked closely enough at the Bible you’d see plainly that Jesus didn’t really die in an atoning way for all individuals. That just seemed wrong as well. I didn’t understand how you could fit “some” or “the elect” into verses like John 3:16, 1 Timothy 4:10, or 1 John 2:2. Still I was fully discipled in Calvinism and shown how it all made “logical” sense. Years later after reading both sides of this issue along with my Bible I’ve come back to that place of discomfort with these doctrines. However logical the doctrines may be in connection with the Calvinistic system, I don’t see it as scripturally supported logic.
To Come…
In my next posts I will flesh out some of what I now see as a more biblical and moderate approach to the issues of Limited Atonement and Irresistible Grace and what I would call Moderate Soteriology. I’ll look forward to the discussions that hopefully roll out from opening up this series of posts! But in this area almost more than any other we need to remember to stand together and speak what we believe to be the truth in a spirit of unity and love. Until next time…
){kind=link}
Kellen,
Great topic! Most certainly a hotly debated/talked about topic in our day.
I agree with your premiss and am wholly moderate in my position on these things as well, so I’m looking forward to your future posts. I do have a couple of questions.
TULIP is a logically constructed theological theory wherein each point follows from the one that precedes it; thus if Total Depravity is true then it logically follows that Unconditional Election is true. If Unconditional Election is true then it logically follows that Limited Atonement is true; and so on and so forth. So, if you “would affirm the basic concepts of Total Depravity and Perseverance of the Saints,” how could you [logically] do away with the other three points? Wouldn’t you rather have to come up with a completely different construct?
Furthermore, why not be HUGELY troubled by Unconditional Election, which holds that God reprobates and damns the majority of those created in His image to eternal hell from before creation?
Great [initial] Post!
Hey buddy! I thought you’d enjoy a good controversial set of posts.
Answers to you questions will be elaborated in my follow-up posts, but I would say a couple things in response. First, I fully agree that there is “logical” connection with each of the five points. My contention is that this is in a way one of the problems with the system. It is built more on logical conclusions which verses that MAY support the conclusions tagged to each one. The starting place is logic and the supporting tool is Scripture. I believe it is better to better Scripture be the starting place, testing ground, and finale check rather than what seems “logical” to us. So my position wouldn’t be that we need to redeem TULIP but rather, as you said, have a different system all-together. Even as I say that, I don’t want to suggest that my system will be without what could appear to be a lack of logic. But my goal isn’t to define something that seems logical in hope that people will accept it. Rather, I want to say what is biblical, and if what is biblical seems illogical I want us to simply conclude that the truth isn’t really illogical, but supernatural and, as Paul said in regard to these vary issues, “past finding out.” I believe that there are true statements in some of the fine points. But there comes steps in articulating the system as a whole where an inability to accept tensions that if true seem illogical leads to going beyond Scripture’s teaching toward what makes us feel more logically comfortable. For me, instead of defining Scripture down so I am comfortable with the apparent logic I have come to a place where I simply want to accept that some things really are true but “past finding out” completely in this life. I don’t want to oversimplify scripture to make it “make sense” to me. We say at Refuge that God’s gift of reason and logic can in some cases only take us so far before all we can do is stop and worship in light of the mysteries of God.
Beyond that novel
, I agree that the above definition of Unconditional Election is outside the biblical teaching on election. However, as with each of the points, I believe there is a way to biblically describe election as unconditional and yet not define it the same way as Five Point Calvinists. But again, my follow-up posts will help articulate why I would say that and I don’t want to blabber on here anymore. 
-Kellen
Hi, Kellen – I have come to the place where I want all the pieces of the puzzle to be present, even if they don’t fit together – or I can’t get them to fit together in an airtight, logical manner. So, soteriologically God chooses and man chooses. Those are two pieces of the soteriological puzzle. Some say, “Here’s how they fit together.” Other say, “No, here’s how they fit together.” It seems that the schools of thought on this have to shave off a bit of one piece to get it to fit with another piece that they have had to shave off, too. I would rather have whole pieces that make a loose kind of fit than shaved pieces that make a tight fit. It seems as if all the earth was at one time one large land mass. It’s easy to see how all the continents could fit together. But when the models are run for this, you have to sacrifice part of Europe or lose Greenland, etc.
When I was younger, every theological piece fit together nicely in my overall philosophy. But now, I have more loose pieces on my board than tight fitting ones. But at least now I can see the pieces for all they are and don’t have to sacrifice them for the sake of ‘fit’. Anyway – hope that’s not too puzzling. Thanks for the courage to post on an issue like this.
That’s a brilliant illustration that articulates what I was trying to get at in my ramble of a response to Miles. Well, said. I totally agree. Thanks for helping me out on that one.
Kellen – in the moderate middle with you.
Do you mean, “stuck in the middle with you?”
Yes, I totally referenced that old, not cool in any way, shape, or form song.
I love the comment I heard George Bryson use once: “I’m not a Calvinist, I’m not an Arminian, I’m a Biblicist.”
I know what he meant. I strive to be the same. I don’t think balance can be achieved or arrived at by directly striving for balance. I think biblical balance is the result of solid, sound study habits.
So I don’t know if I’m in the middle or not!
Haha. I hear you, Bill. By middle I simply mean that I see strengths and weakness on what are usually considered the two polar opposites. I think there are a number of middle of the road soteriological positions that aren’t definitively Calvinist or Arminian. So I’m not necessarily trying to hit DEAD middle, but happen to find a mysterious home that lands somewhere in the middle of the commonly held wide ends of the soteriological spectrum.