TULIP, Calvinism, and The Great Controversy Theme

John Calvin
Herbert Douglass, in the book Fork in the Road has written a helpful summary of why Calvinism and Adventism cannot be unified on the idea of what the Gospel means. You may not know it, but Calvinists are the “big wigs” in the evangelical world. From popular scholars like R. C. Sproul to pastors like D. James Kennedy and John McAurthur. Certainly there are some who do not agree with all of the positions of the Calvinistic cause, but many of the popular authors and preachers in the Evangelical world are Calvinists.

The Five Points

By Calvinists, I mean those who hold to the five points of Calvinism, or at least most of the points. This is often referred to as TULIP, In short these are:

  • Total Depravity – When humanity sinned it was placed in a position where they can do nothing but sin. It is sometimes called “total inability.”
  • Unconditional Election – God unconditionally elected some to be saved.
  • Limited Atonement – God only died and provided the atonement for salvation to those who were elected to be saved.
  • Irresistible Grace – The grace that saves cannot be resisted by the human being it is given to.
  • Perseverance of the Saints – Once you are saved, there is nothing that can remove you from that saved condition.

Where the System Begins

They begin their system with the idea of God’s sovereignty. God is ultimately in charge and can do anything God wants to do. No one else has freedom. God alone has freedom. Due to total depravity, we cannot chose anything but sin. Thus God must choose those who will be saved and thereby will be choosing those who will be lost. Humanity can not judge God, the saved should be happy that they are among the ones that God has chosen to save.

Adventism’s Starting Point

Adventism begins with the concept of God giving humanity Freedom. We say that God has given the gift of freedom to all of humanity. We get to choose whether we will follow Satan or God’s government. This gift of freedom has been given to the entire universe of beings, according to this idea.

Interestingly God uses this world to demonstrate where Satan’s principles will lead. Thus God chooses to demonstrate the rightness of God’s cause in this system.

Finally, God has chosen all of us in his son to eternal life, and those who do not reject God’s rule of love will be saved at last.

In the end, we have one scheme beginning with God’s sovereignty that makes human freedom impossible. On the other end we have humanities freedom as being something given to humanity by a sovereign God. God wants us to choose the righteous government. But the Calvanistic system makes such a choice impossible unless the one has already been predestined to salvation.

Finally, in the Adventist system, God allows Satan’s choice to play out before the entire universe. Freedom of choice is an important component of Adventism while it is impossible under Calvinism.

Can’t Synthesize the Two

While there are certain similarities between the two groups, and both can recognize that one can be saved while agreeing with the other position. But like my Calvinist friend told me after a long conversation, “You may be saved…but you are wrong on this issue.” So we see that we can’t synthesize the two views. And why would we want to? Either the Calvinist view is right, or the Adventism view is right, or perhaps logically another option is correct, but all of them are not right. Because of this, it is time for Adventists to stop getting our “understanding of the love of God” from folks who do not accept at all the freedom of humanity which is at the foundation of the Great Controversy that we preach. It is time to decide if we are Adventists or not. If not, then Calvinism might be an acceptable alternative, go ahead and look into it, but if you are going to be Adventist, then it is time to stop running behind the evangelical teachers who have different presuppositions than we have. If we are going to be Adventists, be Adventists.

They Don’t Mix

No Adventism and Calvinism don’t mix. It is time to stop acting as if it does. It is time to stop acting like the contradictions that we are currently spouting are actually “paradoxes.” It is time to stop telling our people that our evangelical friends have Jesus and we have the law, so go to them to get Jesus and come to us to get the law! No! If we ain’t preaching Jesus, then we need to start preaching him in the context of the message that God has given to us. Be not deceived our Calvinist brothers and sisters do have a place for the law, and it is an important place, but it is just not the same place we have for the law and for Jesus in our understanding.

So what is the answer? Maybe it is time to start reading Steps to Christ again instead of Experiencing God. What’s the answer? Using The Great Controversy Theme as a hermeneutical key to interpret everything. Otherwise we will continue to drift wondering why we even exist as a people.

Adventist Television Reflections

I must admit that I haven’t looked at much Adventist television. It had been maybe 10 years ago since the last time I had looked at 3ABN and I hadn’t gone back. At that time it seemed to be a haven of poorly produced traditional preachers preaching about historic themes. It appears as though the programming has been divesified into more than just preaching and the quality of the programs look and feel a bit better. But I havne’t looked a lot at 3abn maybe I will…

Well recently I began looking at the Hope Channel. I always saw that Hope Channel as the official response to 3ABN. Less rough around the edges and more “mainstream.” So I looked at it and saw a number of programs.

There is a program where they simply talk to various singers in Adventism. It really reminds me of a “TBN Praise the Lord”-Like program with only the singing. Then Elder Don Schneider of the NAD comes with his program that seems to be the talking portion of the “TBN Praise the Lord-like” program. This seems to emphasize what particular Adventists are doing that affect the world. There is no studio audience like on “Praise the Lord.” Sometimes the studio audience feels contrived especially with the applauding every couple words, but it does at times provide a give and take that can be helpful. I do at times miss the genuine moments of spontaneous celebration of the Goodness of Jesus. But that’s not a big deal.

There is also a weekly Revelation Seminar-like program hosted by Jon Paulien and Graeme Bradford. They are looking at the big picture of the Book in what feels like it may be a “scaled down” seminary course. Paulien talks about the book from its big picture “Chaistic” structure that you can see in such books as the Daniel and Revelation Committee Series. I say it is “Revelation Seminar-like” but it really does feel like professors are teaching rather than evangelists. What I mean is that they are much more careful with their language than many preachers. They definitely present their conclusions in much the same way, but they are more guarded and precise in their language.

The Sabbath School presentations are also interesting. There is the small 4 person Sabbath School U that takes students from Andrews and its seminary and lets them discuss the weekly lesson. Added to that is the much larger Hope Sabbath School with Pastor Derek Morris. Morris class is in the traditional vein of a teacher in front of a group although he does make a strong effort to involve the group. It appears that there are around 20 in that group. These programs really are like the various Bible Study programs that you can find on Christian television. Although what is different about this is that you have a group rather than one individual.

Surprisingly I even saw a “Gaither Family-like” group singing. You know where Bill Gaither brings a large group of Christian singers together to sing songs. I gotta admit I love those programs. I love all kinds of Gospel music especially the country gospel that is usually emphasized in those Gaither programs. I must admit that I also really zero in when Whintley Phipps or T. Marshall Kelly sing on there. Well I was surprised to see a Gaither like singing with Adventist singers on the Hope Channel. The signing felt like there was a “damper” on it. There was a more somber tone throughout much of it. But be that as it may, I, being a life-long Adventist, couldn’t allow the novelty to pass without checking it out.

All in all I like Hope channel. I suspect that it was designed for folks like me. Because fo that, I do understand those who say that this is geared towards Adventists though. At best it is geared to those who like to watch Trinity Broadcasting Network (TBN) which I must admit I look at as well. Hey I even catch a sermon on the Word network from time to time. So while there are programs that may appeal to that community, there are other programs that are designed specifically for our community like the very good documentary program on Ellen White.

The picture of Adventism presented does feel “user friendly.” I think that it is solidly in line with the fundamental beliefs, so you may still hear such terms as “Babylon” or “remnant,” but these terms are carefully defined when they are used. I get the feeling that our “inside language” is limited as well.

There may be a bit for the unchurched like the Loma Linda Program that feels like it was produced for the “health channel” in a reality-show like atmosphere. But there is not really a ton for that group, but to be honest, such programming would probably have to be a totally different network. For example, I doubt many “unchurched” people are watching TBN or many other Christian Television programs. But that is just my thoughts and I could be wrong.

At any rate, there must be a moment when the church can give information to its members. This is a great vehicle for that. However, in the end, this is only part of our goal. We still have need for active work outside of our homes. If our televisions cause us to become more and more sequestered then it is a problem whether we are watching Hope, TBN, Word, or CNN.

In the end, Hope seems to be a vehicle to give information and entertainment to a segment of the Adventist population. A secondary goal may be to provide a humane picture of Adventists studying the Bible and singing songs and doing mission work to the outside world. It appears to do both of those jobs pretty well.

Package of Beliefs or Mindset

Is Adventism primarily a package of beliefs or a mindset? It would seem that the dominate view is that it is simply a package of beliefs. These beliefs are either important or not so important or kind of important depending on who you ask. This package includes the sanctuary, state of the dead, and Sabbath. Some lament the objective fact that many are no longer preaching sermons on these doctrines. However, when you dig a little deeper and ask them what kind of sermon they are referring to, it seems as though they mean sermons that didactically defend or teach these doctrines.

While it is true that there is a time to hear these doctrines defined and defended, I question whether the 11:00 service Sabbath morning is that best time. No wonder people got turned off on these doctrines. They may have simply heard them taught over and over again until they assumed that all know them. I mean do we really need a sermon every week (or every other week) that simply delineates why a doctrine is true?

The key thing that is missing in this analysis however is that Adventism is more than a package of beliefs, it is a mindset. The Sabbath flows from that mindset. The Sanctuary doctrine was once an organizing principle that helped to describe the mindset. Our great problem is not that we don’t hear any sermons calculating 1844 anymore. Our great problem is that there is no underlying “Adventist” mindset through which we preach any of our sermons. In short, if T.D. Jakes preaches a sermon on the Goodness of God, that does not mean Adventists should not preach a sermon on the same subject. Adventists must preach sermons on the same subject. My contention, however, is that when an Adventist preaches that sermon it will include aspects, views, insights, and even definitions of “goodness” that come from our interaction with Sabbath, Sanctuary, Bible Wholeness, and yes the Third Angel’s Message.

We don’t need a regurgitation of a package of beliefs that no one sees having any relevance to daily living. We need a deeper understanding of who we are that will affect any sermon we preach. Even, yes, on those occasions when we preach from the package of beliefs.