Get rid of the Calvinist TULIP?

[biblelighthouse]

I am a 5-point Calvinist, but I dislike the TULIP acronym. I think 4 of the 5 letters are very misleading. Please check out this article regarding the problems with "TULIP":

http://www.biblelighthouse.com/sovereignty/nomoretulip.htm



I much prefer this formulation of the 5 points:



E - Exhaustive Depravity

L - Lord-centered Election

E - Effectual Atonement

C - Conquering Grace

T - Triumphant Saints



I go into some more detail here:

http://www.biblelighthouse.com/sovereignty/elect.htm



I'm so tired of hearing Arminians build straw men out of the

words "unconditional", "limited", and "irresistible". "TULIP" has

been around so long, and it's not going away. But it would be nice to start seeing fewer TULIPs as time goes by. When I try to explain "TULIP" to people, I often have to explain why "unconditional" doesn't really mean "unconditional"; "irresistible" doesn't really

mean "irresistible", etc.



Even R.C. Sproul, Michael Horton, and many other Calvinist authors complain about TULIP or avoid it altogether.



It's time for a new, more Biblical, more helpful mnemonic.

Maybe "ELECT" will be it. Maybe not. But if anyone else has any good ideas for a new "TULIP", by all means, share it!



Let me know your thoughts . . .



In Christ,

Joseph M. Gleason

_________________

www.biblelighthouse.com

---The Bible Lighthouse ---

[GraceAmbassador]

The problem some have with TULIP is exactly what you said: The words "limited" and the word "irresistible".

However most of us in this forum, especially the moderators believe that the best word is "limited" because the atonement is limited as opposed to universal. Is not that the atonement is universal but only effectual to the elect. In fact we think that this notion is hypo-calvinism or a by product of an attempt to reconcile the inrreconcilable: arminian and Calvinist doctrine.

The atonement is NOT universal period! It is limited to the elect thus it only works for the elect. Actually we should say: it works ONLY for the elect because it is ONLY for the elect.

I don't mean that you imply that it is "universal" but effectual only to the elect, but removing the word "limited" can lead to that conclusion.

Irrisistible is also a better word in my view. Irrisistible implies already the notion you defend with "conquering" (I did read your link): Man can attempt to resist but can't. Saving Grace cannot be resisted! Some aspects of our walk with God, after our Salvation can be a struggle until God finally leads us to obey Him, but Saving Grace is irresistible.

Total Depravity means a depravity that is complete and without exception. Calvin explains that man is not "intensively evil" but "intrinsically evil". So, I think your change on that one has a distinction without a difference!

I have no problems with the others.

Low Grace Calvinists (whatever that means) will always grapple with the "limited" atonement. That is only a slippery slope for them to question or at least struggle with the other concepts as well. Defending TULIP is not easy and it is not meant to be easy but only for those who find difficulty in the fact that God does hate some (or simply does not love them) and that Jesus only died for those whom the Father called. But for most of us in here, I can sepeak securely, it is possible to defend it without compromising it.

My humble opinion only!

Milt

[ray kikkert]

I am a 5-point Calvinist, but I dislike the TULIP acronym. I think 4 of the 5 letters are very misleading. Please check out this article regarding the problems with "TULIP":

http://www.biblelighthouse.com/sovereignty/nomoretulip.htm

"Misleading" would not be the trouble of Calvinism or the five points. These points have been articulated to Arminians for years. They just will not hear it, rather will stop their ears from hearing it. The Canons of Dort are quite clear in articulating the rejection of errors. That they can be misconstrued is not the fault of the confession, but those who would militate against it. The argument is not strong enough for change as specified.

[Brandan Kraft]

All men limit the atonement in some way. Calvinists limit the extent of the atonement. Arminians limit the power of the effectiveness of the atonement. I don't think biblelighthouse was advocating a form of 4 point calvinism - I'll give him the benefit of the doubt.

I personally don't find anything wrong with the words "Limited Atonement". I for one will not try to make my doctrine any more palatable to men by coming up with more acronymns or sayings if anyone suggests that I should.

TULIP is an acronymn I use because it's widely recognized. ELECT is a biblical word that many believers wouldn't recognize as an acryonymn because the word is used commonly amongst sovereign grace believers.

[foundinHim]

Joseph , you sure are making the rounds of the Christian forums . I have already noticed your posts on this subject on the Puritan Mind and the Reformed Reader . Are there others that I missed ? BTW , I think you have made some valid points .

[Robert R. Higby]

When I try to explain "TULIP" to people, I often have to explain why "unconditional" doesn't really mean "unconditional"; "irresistible" doesn't really mean "irresistible", etc.

That is the problem. If you are trying to explain why unconditional doesn't really mean unconditional and irresistable doesn't really mean irresistible, you yourself have a controversy with these doctrines as plainly stated and therefore have a need to indulge in paradoxical explanations. But if they are true, TULIP cannot be improved upon. Of course, TULIP does not explain all that needs to be said about the doctrine of predestination--but that is a different subject.

[cprwc]

"What's in a name! that which we call a TULIP by any other name would smell as sweet..."

-Shakespeare

Our deep-rooted well-nourished "TULIP" grows from scripture and lives in the hearts of men alone by the living waters of Christ's Spirit. May the TULIPs flourish all around us.
It is a good name to keep on our tongues.

-CPRWC

[Brandan Kraft]

When I try to explain "TULIP" to people, I often have to explain why "unconditional" doesn't really mean "unconditional"; "irresistible" doesn't really mean "irresistible", etc.

That is the problem. If you are trying to explain why unconditional doesn't really mean unconditional and irresistable doesn't really mean irresistible, you yourself have a controversy with these doctrines as plainly stated and therefore have a need to indulge in paradoxical explanations. But if they are true, TULIP cannot be improved upon. Of course, TULIP does not explain all that needs to be said about the doctrine of predestination--but that is a different subject.

Wow, how did I miss this in Joseph's post. Amen Bob - I agree completely! Joseph - unconditional REALLY MEANS unconditional - what do you think it means?

[lionovjudah]

Joseph:

Calvinism is not an acronym. Calvinism asks two poignent questions:

1) What must I do to be saved
2)How shall God be glorified.

IT begins, centers, and ends with the vision of God in His glory, and it is set apart before all things to give God His right in every nook and cranny of existence. It is not election that is the hinge IMHO, but His irresistable grace that is much more deeply embeded.

What is in the heart of the Gospel, is the absolute exclusion of the human activity in the initiation of this supernatural salvation that God provides. When man is blinded to think that he has something to do with any part of this process, that some participation is to be had on our part in the process of salvation, God is robbed of His glory. Election/Predestination is what has been left because of "New Improved" calvinism, which has stripped away this irresistable grace and complete satifaction of Christ.

I find it simple and humbling to not worry about teaching an acronym, but simply say that As a sinful man, I do not need urgings or assistance to save myself, I need someone to save me completely. And Jesus Christ is this recognized Savior. This is the root of Salvation, in which Calvinism exemplifies. This deep sense of my helplessness for every step of the way and awareness that there exists no such thing as "auotosalvation", allows me to say with certainty that Savation is 100% God from beginning to end.

So why spend time worry about an acronym, when these truths, this supernatural redemption, this miracle of Salvation could be proclaimed.




Joe

[L-Today]

Dear Joe - AMEN, brother!!!

L-Today.

[Brandan Kraft]

lionovjudah, that is the best post I've ever seen from you.... Is there something going on in you lately?

[lionovjudah]

lionovjudah, that is the best post I've ever seen from you.... Is there something going on in you lately?

Perhaps just a realization of what I wrote Brandan. People have always wanted, and attempted to "repackage" Christ.

For Joseph to spend more time divising a new acronym, as if the answer is in an acronym, makes no sense.

The 2 questions I posed above, are 2 that I am 100% sure about. I bring absolutley no eisigeses into them. I have prayed to get through the layers and to the root, and this is what I have found in my studies. Compared to anything else we talk about, these 2 questions rise above and outshine all IMHO.

The debates we have are edifying, but at times we are left with "vain repetitons" of the same ole story.

Ask a person those 2 questions, acronym, no acronym, calvinism, no calvinism, And the Answer is Christ alone. His irresistable grace, His complete work for His elects salvation, now that is the humbling simple Gospel.


And thank you kindly for the compliment...

Joe

[Don_Guyus]

Even R.C. Sproul, Michael Horton, and many other Calvinist authors complain about TULIP or avoid it altogether.


---The Bible Lighthouse ---

I didn't know R.C. Sproul was a Calvinist, I thought he was an evangelical

[wildboar]

biblelighthouse:

"Chosen By God" is an excellent defense of the reformed teaching of salvation. I don't agree with every jot and tittle of it but he spends a good deal of time defending TULIP. Horton has some good boooks defending it as well such as "What's so Amazing About Grace?" although I have problems with some of the things that he says too. Have you read any books by these men?

[biblelighthouse]

biblelighthouse:

"Chosen By God" is an excellent defense of the reformed teaching of salvation. I don't agree with every jot and tittle of it but he spends a good deal of time defending TULIP. Horton has some good boooks defending it as well such as "What's so Amazing About Grace?" although I have problems with some of the things that he says too. Have you read any books by these men?

Yes, I have read a large pile of Calvinist literature. I love John Owen, R.C. Sproul, Michael Horton, Martin Luther, and quite a few others.

Now let me ask you: Have *you* read any books by these men? It is interesting that you chose to mention R.C. Sproul and Michael Horton, since BOTH of these men agree with me that the "TULIP" acronym is problematic. In the "Chosen By God" book, Sproul changes the "T" to an "R" (Radical), the "L" to a "D" (I forget what he made the D stand for), and he also changed the "I" to an "E" (I think he used "effectual" here, just like I did). As for Horton, he throws out *all 5* letters of the "TULIP". Instead of total depravity, unconditional election, limited atonement, irresistable grace, and perseverance of the saints, Horton titles his chapters like this:
"Rebels without a Cause", "Grace before Time", "Mission Accomplished", "Intoxicating Grace", and "No Lost Causes". But fear not, fellow-Calvinists; these are the same doctrines always taught, just renamed.

Yes, I have read both R.C. Sproul and Michael Horton's books on the 5 points of Calvinism. And I agree with both of them that we need to get rid of the TULIP acronym.

I believe all 5 points of Calvinism VERY strongly. But I think the "TULIP" is badly worded.

[samohtwerdna]

I believe all 5 points of Calvinism VERY strongly. But I think the "TULIP" is badly worded.

Please explain badly worded?
As well noted on previous post to this thread. The wording of the "TULIP" is true to scripture and the teaching of calvinism. If you are ashamed to say "total", "Limited" and "Irresistable", then you have a problem with calvinism. If you think their is a more precise way to state the doctrines of God's absolute soveriegnty - then please enlighten us. But, remember that it is the arminians that really have the problem with calvinism - not calvinist.

Personally I think the acronym should only be used to help young calvinist learn the skelton of predestination concerning salvation. It should not be used as an exhaustive argument against arminians. Acronyms are for students not professors or enemies. Horton and Sproul are shooting for a particular audiance of "newly aquainted calvinist".

[samohtwerdna]

Oh, and I think the "D" that Srpoul liked was definte.

[GraceAmbassador]

Whatever letters other brethren choose to replace "L" on limited atonement, I would like to know what the change is all about other than to make it appear that the atonement is "not really" limited?

What word can say for certain that something is "limited" than the word "limited"? Arminians have a problem with the word "limited" simply because they believe that the atonement is not really limited or limited in any sense. How about "us"? What is the reason to use any other word that only, if at all, euphemistically indicate limited?

I said it once and I will say it again to all those who claim to be 5 pointers here:

What you DENY is as important, if not more important, that what you accept in the Doctrines of Grace. I am not a religious thought police and loathe those who take such a position, but when people change "limited" for "definite" knowing that "definite" is not limited and vice versa and that "definite" can mean euphemistically and disguisingly that Jesus died FOR ALL but His death is only "definite" for the elect, than I have a reason to believe that their allegiance to the Doctrines of Grace is at best "shaky".

Yes, I do read Sproul and Horton. But this thing about "icons" is with the Greek Orthodox... I couldn't careless as to what the "icons" opinions is if their opinion may lend an impression of a whatever slight deviance from what the Bible reveals. Plus, the best way to live in the coat tails of even more ancient "icons" and sell lots of books and get lots of speaking engagements is to write books on what the past icons wrote and try to change the notions that have been established by time and passed the test in the scrutiny of biblical correction. I am all for "if it is not broken, BREAK IT"! I am a nonconformist confrontationist! But I have to stop when the breakage is attempted in a solidly grounded biblical concept.

Again, my humble opinion only.

Milt

[Robert R. Higby]

I agree, Milt. The atonement is Definite and it is also Limited in scope toward those elected to salvation from eternity. The basics are plain:

Total Depravity / Total Inability
Unconditional Election
Limited Atonement
Irresistable Grace
Preservation and Perseverance of the saints

All of which are solid biblical doctrine. When expounded to the full these explain more of the gospel and plan of salvation than 99% of what is preached today in the pulpits of the land.

We need to go even further, however, in explaining God's sovereign purposes. My next 'blog' will deal with the basic error of low-grace Calvinism: the notion that God's desires are in conflict with his wisdom. Addressing this issue is one of many things needed to improve upon the traditional basics of the 5 points, though a genuine doctrine of Limited Atonement would NEVER propose God's desires to be in conflict with his wisdom!

[biblelighthouse]

Whatever letters other brethren choose to replace "L" on limited atonement, I would like to know what the change is all about other than to make it appear that the atonement is "not really" limited?

What word can say for certain that something is "limited" than the word "limited"? Arminians have a problem with the word "limited" simply because they believe that the atonement is not really limited or limited in any sense. How about "us"? What is the reason to use any other word that only, if at all, euphemistically indicate limited?

I said it once and I will say it again to all those who claim to be 5 pointers here:

What you DENY is as important, if not more important, that what you accept in the Doctrines of Grace.

Milt,

I do not deny that the atonement is limited. It most certainly is limited! Jesus died for the elect ONLY! The atonement is LIMITED to the elect.

My problem with the term, "limited atonement", is that the Arminian version of the atonement is *also* limited. Calvinists limit the *intent* of the atonement, while Arminians limit the *effectiveness* of the atonement. Calvinists believe that the atonement is totally effectual, but that it is limited to the elect. Arminians believe that the atonement is for everybody in the world, but that it is limited in its success in saving people.

That is a big reason why I prefer the term, "Effectual Atonement". Calvinists (like myself) believe that the atonement is 100% effectual, and that it accomplishes *everything* God intended it to accomplish. Jesus didn't die for one single person who will end up in hell. All beneficiaries of the atonement will be saved.

I hope I have clarified myself to your satisfaction. I have *no* desire whatsover to deny that the atonement is limited. If I did, then I would tout an "unlimited atonement". But then I would be an inconsistent 4-point Calvinist, or even worse, a messed-up Arminian.

I am a 5-point Calvinist, and I definitely believe that the atonement is limited in scope and intent.

In Christ,
Joseph