Doctrines of Grace
June 18, 2009
Many thanks to my friend Bill for the ideal image for this series of posts!
After Tom suggested in the previous comments that I was leaning toward Calvinism (not that there’s anything wrong with that), I looked up the five “doctrines of grace.”
- Total Depravity
- Unconditional Election
- Limited Atonement
- Irresistible Grace
- Perseverance of the Saints
I am leaving town for the weekend, and don’t have time to flesh these out now, but in comparison to TULIP, my five doctrines of “grace” are…
- Broken Eikons
- Eternal Purpose
- Extravagant Atonement
- Response to Grace
- Shalom
Discuss amongst yourselves if you would like, and maybe we can talk more about each of these next week.
June 18, 2009 at 7:28 am
I love your doctrines of grace and am looking forward to some discussion – but right now I feel like having a beer :>)
June 19, 2009 at 3:59 am
Thanks Liz, see you next week.
June 18, 2009 at 7:28 am
Did your men’s group put you up to this? ;-P
June 18, 2009 at 7:41 am
Jonathan,
Being in such a diverse group, with dispensationalists and others who believe in election, predestination, and lack of free will is challenging for me.
June 18, 2009 at 9:09 am
so you prefer Belgium (land of great beers) over holland (land of tulips)? Glad to hear that….
Your doctrine of grace sounds more graceful anyway… Like them more than calvinist ones, which btw date from some time after JC, -eh, cofusing initials- Calvin.
I must say that Extravagant atonement sound more like ‘for he so loved the world’ than limited atonement…
shalom
Bram
June 19, 2009 at 4:00 am
Actually, as a Dutch girl, I should say tulips. I’ve heard that JC wouldn’t recognize what passes as Calvinism today.
June 18, 2009 at 11:08 am
While I don’t agree with all of either TULIP or BEERS, I just had to say you crack me up , woman! I’ll have to come up with an acronym of my own when I have more time. I’ll be sure to share it with you when I do, though I seriously doubt anyone can outdo BEERS!
June 19, 2009 at 3:58 am
Tracy, I look forward to hearing your thoughts on a few of these points.
June 19, 2009 at 5:55 am
My only disagreement would be to the “Response to grace” line. I’ve spent years studying this until I was finally able to come to a conclusion on the topic…took me awhile, didn’t it?
I’m sure I’ll be blogging about it some day….
June 18, 2009 at 4:03 pm
[...] Doctrines of Grace (tags: christianity theology) [...]
June 18, 2009 at 5:10 pm
Does this come in a lite?
June 18, 2009 at 5:28 pm
Theology Lite is probably fitting.
June 19, 2009 at 6:21 am
I’m curious about the “Extravagant Atonement”. Not heard of that one. I am still working through the thought of “Curative Atonement”
June 22, 2009 at 5:56 am
Joel,
I would also probably agree with the idea of curative atonement. With a view of sin as disease that than through a legal lens of behavior, atonement then is curative rather than punitive.
June 19, 2009 at 11:12 am
Quite honestly, I am personally quite skeptical of theological ‘-isms’. I suppose there might be some benefit to them, but it seems to me that the overriding benefit is that of solidifying a sect to the point of exclusivism. In my experience, this has become more devisive than it has unifying (except, perhaps, within the exclusivity of the sect itself).
Having served in international, cross-cultural, cross-denominational mission for ten years, I found that the unifying bond of Christ’s followers is not found in theological -isms, rather it is found in a relational bond of passion and compassion.
This would probably never pass muster with a true theologian, but I’ll go with these five:
*Listen attentively
*Observe carefully
*Value every life
*Include everyone
*Never hold a grudge
*Give without reserve
June 22, 2009 at 6:02 am
Ken,
Great points. I agree that unity is most important and that creating division based on theology is counter-productive. However, in being exposed recently to theologies that seem really different than mine, it seems important relationally to understand where they are coming from, even if we don’t agree. The challenge then is for me to communicate with love and grace around the areas of disagreement and focus on the areas of common ground.
June 22, 2009 at 2:24 pm
Being of Dutch heritage myself, I’d say you are on your way to a healing mission when you can relate TULIP to BEERS.
June 22, 2009 at 4:34 pm
Ken,
Ditto to all you wrote.
I don’t think it’s possible to entirely eliminate “systematic theology” either on the personal or group level. Even your LOVING is a systematizing. However, it should be remembered that no systematic theology of our own making is an exact representation of The Good News…though some systematic theologies come closer than others.
And, I’m not “a true theologian”, but all of us “do theology” whether we admit it or not.
Tom
June 22, 2009 at 4:41 pm
…changing one sentence…
Instead of;
Read;
T
June 23, 2009 at 6:12 am
Tom,
Agreed. Theology at it’s simplest is a study of God, which would, of course, lead to some system of thought. I fear we could not be true disciples if we were not engaged in such study on some level. My skepticism lies more in the area of “-isms”. Building an encampment around inconclusive theories developed by men. This, I believe, is the fundamental cause of divisions in the church. Paul addressed this very point in 1 Corinthians 3 beginning in verse 4 where he chastises elements of the church of Corinth for dividing between ‘following Pau’ and ‘following Apollos’. Today we could substitute Calvin, Luther, Wesley, or any other number of men, for Paul and Apollos. When the church becomes more focused on ‘fine points of doctrine’ than it does ‘Christ’s mission’, we loose a lot of our impact. We can now quite readily measure this loss in our post-modern culture.
June 19, 2009 at 11:44 am
I’ve never commented here before, but I think your doctrines of grace are absolutely splendid! Seriously. I am going to share this with others. Wonderful!
June 20, 2009 at 1:48 pm
[...] geworden bij meer post-evangelische en emerging church-kringen. Ik kwam het bijvoorbeeld tegen bij deze interessante blogpost van Kingdom grace, één van de weinige vrouwelijke theologische [...]
June 22, 2009 at 12:46 am
sorry for blogging in dutch…
June 22, 2009 at 6:04 am
LOL, I wondered what language that was.
June 21, 2009 at 4:00 pm
I like yours much better!
June 22, 2009 at 5:30 am
I think BEERS is Funkengrooven. I’ll take mine on tap, always.
Tom
June 22, 2009 at 6:05 am
Scott, Jennifer, and Tom,
Glad you enjoyed them. I hope to discuss each of the points further.
June 22, 2009 at 5:13 pm
Grace,
Looks like the major point of divergence is probably the area of “Limited Atonement” vs. “Extravagant Atonement”. How do you understand “Extravagant Atonement” and in what way do you think that differs or compares to “L A”?
(Not an interrogation. Just trying to pin down the corners of the discussion.)
Tom
June 24, 2009 at 9:17 pm
Here’s a question as we venture further down the TULIP…
The “evangelicals” I am familiar with give homage to Calvin for (much of?) their “doctrine”. Some of it, seems to be different.
Take, for instance, the “P”… “Perseverance of the Saints”. That is not the same as “Eternal Security” or “Once Saved, always Saved” which is often touted from the pulpits.
June 25, 2009 at 6:21 am
Joel,
There may be disagreement amongst calvinist about each of these points. My initial reading about P did indicate something about “once saved, always saved.” However my understanding of the calvinist perspective is cursory. I am relying on the definitions provided on the site that I’ve linked.
July 5, 2009 at 1:12 am
[...] context. That’s what I like about fresh expressions that I meet in the blogosphere like ‘the doctrines of grace‘ (the acronym BEERS instead of the old ‘calvinistic’ TULIP) or the ‘five [...]
September 29, 2009 at 8:38 am
[...] găsit aici un grupaj de articole foarte relaxa(n)te, aproape imposibil de imaginat în aria [...]