# Get rid of the Calvinist TULIP?



## biblelighthouse (Apr 6, 2005)

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 ---


----------



## ReformedWretch (Apr 6, 2005)

Did you make that up?


----------



## biblelighthouse (Apr 6, 2005)

> _Originally posted by houseparent_
> Did you make that up?



Yes.


----------



## sastark (Apr 6, 2005)

Joseph,

Don't you think that the enemies of the Doctrines of Grace will come up with straw men arguements, no matter how we word them?

Also, I can appreciate your desire to be more precise in your terminology, but I also believe the fact of the matter is that our depravity is total, our election is unconditional, the atonement is limited, God's saving grace is irresistible and the saints will persevere.

Interesting thoughts, and I do like the acronym "ELECT", but I also think we ought to stick by "TULIP" and not let arminians or anyone else, for that matter redefine our terms.


----------



## sastark (Apr 6, 2005)

ok....not sure what's going on with the board, but the double post was not intentional.


----------



## Anton Bruckner (Apr 6, 2005)

good job Biblelighthouse


----------



## Authorised (Apr 6, 2005)

I never use the five points in a discussion of Calvinism. There are usually better ways.


----------



## heartoflesh (Apr 6, 2005)

looks good to me!


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Apr 6, 2005)

> _Originally posted by sastark_
> Joseph,
> 
> Don't you think that the enemies of the Doctrines of Grace will come up with straw men arguements, no matter how we word them?
> ...


----------



## Robin (Apr 6, 2005)

Gulp...please don't take this the wrong way, but....

only "amateur Calvinists" continue to focus on the doctrine of election as a point of contention or apologetic.

For those settled in the doctrine of Grace....which takes time, of course...election is rarely focused upon as THE point to nail-down the Gospel.

Rather, it is the Gospel (doctrine of Justification) that is used -- via explaining the whole of Redemptive history...that is the better route to reach the unbeliever and contend with Arminian opposition.

Robin


----------



## Robin (Apr 6, 2005)

Acronymns weren't used by Paul, Btw....and to top it off....I never use "Calvin" "Calvinism" Etc., as a badge/emblem to promote my case.
 
It is the Apostle Paul that wrote the things Calvin agreed with. If anybody has a beef....I take them to Paul or Jesus. 

But that's just me....



R.


----------



## biblelighthouse (Apr 6, 2005)

> _Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by sastark_
> ...



I don't want anyone redefining our terms either. I'm a staunch 5-point Calvinist, and defend the same points as any good Reformed guy would.

But one of the reasons I dislike "TULIP" is because of the *negative* nature of most of the points, when stated this way. 

For example: 

1) The word "Unconditional" tells us that election is *not* conditional on us, but it doesn't tell us what election *is* . . . namely, Lord-centered . . . for God's Glory. (Besides, it's NOT unconditional. God has reasons for choosing. Those reasons just are not based on *our* good works, or anything good in *us*. God's "conditions" are based inside his own "good pleasure", and not in us.)

2) The word "Limited" tells us that the atonement is restricted in some way, but it doesn't tell us anything *positive* about the atonement . . . namely, that it is 100% effectual . . . when Christ atones for someone's sins, then that person will certainly go to Heaven! That's why I prefer "Effectual Atonement" to "Limited Atonement".

3) The word "irresistible" is also stated in a *negative* way. "Conquering Grace" is a much more positive way to state the same truth. (Besides, God's grace *is* resistable! God allows men to resist Him all the time. He just does not allow men to be ultimately successful in their resistance. God ultimately *conquers*!)

4) I also thinks it makes more sense to use an acronym that *itself* reflects a theological truth. "ELECT" is a good acronym for describing God's Sovereignty in salvation for obvious reasons. But what does a "tulip" flower have to do with election? Nothing. That's another reason why I think "ELECT" makes more theological sense.

5) Finally, of course Arminians will always come up with straw man arguments, no matter how we present the facts. But Arminians are already quite *skilled* at poking holes in their messed-up understanding of "TULIP". But throw something fresh at them that they haven't seen before, and maybe it will at least throw some of them off balance.

Those are just some of my thoughts, for what they are worth. I know I'm not changing the world here. I'm just trying to chip in a little bit where I can. Those of you that love TULIP, more power to ya. We are brothers together in the defense of God's awesome Sovereignty. As for those of you that dislike TULIP, I hope you find this fresh "ELECT" acronym to be helpful.

Your brother in Christ,
Joseph M. Gleason


----------



## biblelighthouse (Apr 6, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Robin_
> Gulp...please don't take this the wrong way, but....
> 
> only "amateur Calvinists" continue to focus on the doctrine of election as a point of contention or apologetic.
> ...



Thank you for your input. Maybe you and I have just had different experiences with discussing theology with people. There are quite of people just as you describe, with whom I talk in more of a redemptive history format, instead of debating "the 5 points", per se. But not all people are the same. I have one cousin in particular who I *successfully* led out of Arminianism by *directly* discussing the Doctrines of Grace. 

At the end of the day, we need *multiple* ways of talking to people. If the "TULIP" or "ELECT" acronym is not helpful to you, then don't use it. But acronyms are helpful for at least some of us.


----------



## Robin (Apr 6, 2005)

Joseph....

Throwing something "fresh" at Arminians....would be The Gospel --- straight up, no apologies. Stand fast -- though the accusation of too much freedom incites lawlessness. (A reaction which signals the True Gospel has been heard.) Let's not cower or fret at Arminian fussing...

Hearing the Gospel will always incite one of two reactions: hatred; indifference; worry about sinning too much. The first two reactions are from unbelief; the third is from weak Faith.

Gresham-Machen had it right, you know?



Robin


----------



## biblelighthouse (Apr 6, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Robin_
> Acronymns weren't used by Paul, Btw....and to top it off....I never use "Calvin" "Calvinism" Etc., as a badge/emblem to promote my case.



Maybe acronymns weren't used by Paul, but acrostics (which have similarities to acronymns) were used by David and Jeremiah. Of course, an acrostic starts off each line of a passage with a successive letter of the alphabet, while an acronym uses individual letters of a word to order a subject. But there is a similar principle there. Psalm 176 is an acrostic. And most of the chapters in Lamentations are acrostics.

So, the writers of the Bible *were* interested in using catchy grammatical tools to order their presentations. Is an acronym all that different?


----------



## biblelighthouse (Apr 6, 2005)

> _Originally posted by biblelighthouse_
> Psalm 176 is an acrostic.




Psalm 119 is an acrostic, and it has 176 verses. Duh.


----------



## sastark (Apr 6, 2005)

Ah, Psalm 176, one of my favorites. :-D

Don't you just love typos?


----------



## heartoflesh (Apr 6, 2005)

> _Originally posted by biblelighthouse_
> Psalm 176 is an acrostic.



Is that Psalm before or after the book of Hezekiah?


just kidding!


----------



## Robin (Apr 6, 2005)

> _Originally posted by biblelighthouse_
> At the end of the day, we need *multiple* ways of talking to people.




To this, Joseph, it's an understatement....you're absolutely correct...we must work "in relationships" with friends, relatives, regarding the humanity first - and sincerely. Having a heart for these who bear the _imago Dei_.

However -- I can't believe Calvin would agree with using acronyms -- nor any of the Apostles -- nor Jesus. Yes, we must be teachers of Christ -- making disciples, Etc. But (since I am a teacher) I know whatever we teach --- the student does learn. Doesn't the present complication with such acronyms reveal that it causes more distraction and damage than helps?

I think it's a very important thing to note that Scripture tells us EVERYTHING we must know and *do* to promote the Gospel.

Sola Scriptura means a bit more than it's sufficiency. Teaching and apologetical methods are in there too. So IF we hold to Sola Scriptura, why do we use man-made methods to help in teaching it?

Maybe it's my age or rather "mileage" on the road that puts me here?

In all courtesy,

R.


----------



## Robin (Apr 6, 2005)

Not to change the subject, but I just recalled a "horror-story"....

a friend attending a seeker church this last February 14th heard the evangelical pastor give a sermon:"Jesus is your V.A.L.E.N.T.I.N.E." This acronym, of course was not Biblical...but the pastor thought it was! (By a 74 year old, Biola grad-Baptist, pastor, Btw.)

Thoughts?

R.


----------



## biblelighthouse (Apr 6, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Robin_
> Not to change the subject, but I just recalled a "horror-story"....
> 
> a friend attending a seeker church this last February 14th heard the evangelical pastor give a sermon:"Jesus is your V.A.L.E.N.T.I.N.E." This acronym, of course was not Biblical...but the pastor thought it was! (By a 74 year old, Biola grad-Baptist, pastor, Btw.)
> ...



You and I are definitely in agreement about that being a horror story. What a mess! I got an email along the same lines not too long ago. It traced the letters of the word "valentine" in John 3:16. Good grief!

(But let's start a new thread if we're going to go off on THAT route!) <grin>


----------

