# T.U.L.I.P which letter should be phrased different



## no1special18 (Sep 5, 2007)

Please do not misunderstand, I am a 5 pointer, but I have always disliked the phrasing of L. I mean I know the L is necessary for TULIP to be the acrosstic, but I think limited atonement conveys the wrong idea. I wish particular atonement could fit the acrosstic. Limited atonement makes it sound like the cross was not fully effective while particular atonement avoids that implication all together. What do you guys think? Are there any letters you think convey the wrong idea?


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Sep 5, 2007)

They are fine the way they are. I have had no misunderstanding about them and I am not one who feels they need to change despite what other great men think.


----------



## no1special18 (Sep 5, 2007)

Do you know of any reformed scholars who also do not like term limited atonement? I would pleased to here that I am not alone in this.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Sep 5, 2007)

no1special18 said:


> Do you know of any reformed scholars who also do not like term limited atonement? I would pleased to here that I am not alone in this.



There are a few that are not upset by the term but I know R. C. Sproul Sr. liked Particular atonement better also. There are quite a few if I am not mistaken.


----------



## BobVigneault (Sep 5, 2007)

We discussed variations in this thread.

Kelly Gilliard introduced GRACE:



> Outline it to them this way:
> 
> G - God's Sovereingty in all aspects of human history (including election).
> 
> ...



I guess that means I would change them all.


----------



## toddpedlar (Sep 5, 2007)

I use the phrase "particular atonement" or "particular redemption" to describe what I mean by "limited atonement". I think, honestly, the presence of that particular letter is less a problem than an opportunity to give particular (ha) praise to God for His redemptive plan. People seem to ask about L more than any other - and it is a great chance to talk about what those five points actually mean - perhaps in part because people do so often misunderstand what "limited" means.


----------



## no1special18 (Sep 5, 2007)

One clarification, I am not upset by the term Limited atonement, I just think-- since tulip seems to primarily serve to sum up the doctrines of grace for those who are not familiar with them-- that limited atonement is misleading to those first seeking to understand these doctrines, and thus, maybe a better term should be used. I actually realy like the GRACE acronym above.


----------



## caddy (Sep 5, 2007)

Here as well. Much better phrasing. 



toddpedlar said:


> I use the phrase "particular atonement" or "particular redemption" to describe what I mean by "limited atonement". I think, honestly, the presence of that particular letter is less a problem than an opportunity to give particular (ha) praise to God for His redemptive plan. People seem to ask about L more than any other - and it is a great chance to talk about what those five points actually mean - perhaps in part because people do so often misunderstand what "limited" means.


----------



## Calvibaptist (Sep 5, 2007)

Honestly, I wouldn't be opposed to re-writing them all. I don't think the TULIP acrostic is divinely inspired (not that I think any of you do either). Sure, it succinctly codifies what Calvinists believe in regard to soteriology, but if we could come up with another that would clearly explain it, why not.

Amyraldians could use ROSE
Typical 5-pointers could use DAISY
7-Pointers like John Piper could use GARDENIA

We would just have to flesh all that out.


----------



## toddpedlar (Sep 5, 2007)

Calvibaptist said:


> Honestly, I wouldn't be opposed to re-writing them all. I don't think the TULIP acrostic is divinely inspired (not that I think any of you do either). Sure, it succinctly codifies what Calvinists believe in regard to soteriology, but if we could come up with another that would clearly explain it, why not.
> 
> Amyraldians could use ROSE
> Typical 5-pointers could use DAISY
> ...



sure... except GARDENIA has 8 points


----------



## Calvibaptist (Sep 5, 2007)

Seriously, L was the last one to fall into place for me because I really didn't understand it. I like Particular Redemption, but having the L gives an opportunity to clearly explain it.


----------



## Calvibaptist (Sep 5, 2007)

toddpedlar said:


> Calvibaptist said:
> 
> 
> > Honestly, I wouldn't be opposed to re-writing them all. I don't think the TULIP acrostic is divinely inspired (not that I think any of you do either). Sure, it succinctly codifies what Calvinists believe in regard to soteriology, but if we could come up with another that would clearly explain it, why not.
> ...



Darn you people who actually count!


----------



## MrMerlin777 (Sep 5, 2007)

Calvibaptist said:


> Honestly, I wouldn't be opposed to re-writing them all. I don't think the TULIP acrostic is divinely inspired (not that I think any of you do either). Sure, it succinctly codifies what Calvinists believe in regard to soteriology, but if we could come up with another that would clearly explain it, why not.
> 
> Amyraldians could use ROSE
> Typical 5-pointers could use DAISY
> ...



Some Wesleyan/Arminian types already use DAISY though I'm not sure what the accrostic stands for.

I like to use the term Particular Redemption for Limited Atonement. Though I have no problem with Limited Atonement either.


----------



## jsup (Sep 5, 2007)

Calvibaptist said:


> Honestly, I wouldn't be opposed to re-writing them all. I don't think the TULIP acrostic is divinely inspired (not that I think any of you do either). Sure, it succinctly codifies what Calvinists believe in regard to soteriology, but if we could come up with another that would clearly explain it, why not.



Since the TULIP isn't divinely inspired, don't you think anymore attempts to rewrite the TULIP will be just as un-inspired? I've never had a problem with the acrostic. A lot of my friends had difficulty with L, accepting it and understanding it. Personally, I believe the TULIP does a good job in describing this doctrine with clarity. That's my 

I have also heard that DAISY is used for Arminianism.


----------



## Calvibaptist (Sep 5, 2007)

jsup said:


> Calvibaptist said:
> 
> 
> > Honestly, I wouldn't be opposed to re-writing them all. I don't think the TULIP acrostic is divinely inspired (not that I think any of you do either). Sure, it succinctly codifies what Calvinists believe in regard to soteriology, but if we could come up with another that would clearly explain it, why not.
> ...



I was honestly just being sarcastic. Don't take me too personally!

Hey, what's it like being a Calvinist down at Liberty? My former pastor (who sent me out as a church planter) absolutely hates Calvinism. He graduated from Liberty Seminary.


----------



## christiana (Sep 5, 2007)

The very word 'limited' seems to just antagonize so many that they will listen no further to the explanation of the doctrine! I know 'Particular Redemption' doesnt work in the TULIP but it does clearly state the doctrine with less stress.


----------



## jsup (Sep 5, 2007)

I didn't take you too personally Douglas. I was going to be shocked if y'all tried to start creating a new one on this thread.

Liberty + Calvinism = 

Those two don't mix. My Theology and Philosophy courses were unbearable. I really wondered whether I should intentionally miss questions on a test because it was against my convictions. I'm actually a Distance Learning Student, but I still have a ton of contact with the professors and students. 

I flipped out when I read some of Elmer Towns' work (and he's the dean of something there). I blogged about it because he said, "We can invite the Holy Spirit to work in a person’s life so as to make them more receptive and responsive to the Gospel". He said a lot of questionable things like, "Since Christ died for the sins of the world, man's only sin is that he rejects Christ". I was really tore up. Besides him and Ergun Caner, it's a good college. Not perfect, but good.


----------



## Calvibaptist (Sep 5, 2007)

joshua said:


> *DAISY*
> 
> *D *epraved partially
> *A *cquired Election
> ...





I love it. Now, let's work on ROSE for the 4-pointers.
How about WHEAT for the 5-pointers (anything but PANSY)
Maybe JUNIPER for the 7-pointers.


----------



## toddpedlar (Sep 5, 2007)

joshua said:


> *DAISY*
> 
> *D *epraved partially
> *A *cquired Election
> ...



I strongly suspect only Calvinists actually use DAISY (as above) 
to describe Arminianism. The origin (correct me if I'm wrong) is 
the joke that Arminian theology is just like plucking petals from a 
daisy... "He loves me", "He loves me not", "He loves me", "He loves me not"....

I've never seen anyone actually work out DAISY so that it fits.


----------



## jawyman (Sep 5, 2007)

I personally agree with all 5 points, it is just difficult to explain to someone that is not Reformed. The word "limited" sounds so exclusionary.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Sep 5, 2007)

I'll be honest with you guys. I used to think the sun rose and set on the acrostic but, these days, I'm always a bit skeptical of whether a person is Reformed if they call themselves simply a "5 point Calvinist". It's not that the points aren't useful to help counter certain doctrinal errors but it's about as useful to distill Calvinism into 5 points as it is to be defined as a Fundamentalist.

The "cage stage" of Calvinism is really those that want to make it their mission to convince of these specific points and little else. There are certainly some key doctrines within the 5 points but they are informed by other key doctrines and hermaneutical principles. A person who knows the 5 points and little else has no business trying to teach others about the Reformed faith.

This actually becomes a bit of a difficulty for the other Mods and me who have to approve memberships from people that simply say they agree with the 5 points. I'll have Baptists apply that state they subscribe to the WCF. It's not that I am trying to be stuck up but it means a lot of extra work when a confident "5 pointer" starts jumping into theological discussions with all the depth of "...this is not consistent with the 5 points of Calvinism...."

It is actually of some concern to me that the Founder's Movement is based less on a systematic, Confessional movement and more on a rallying around 5 points like a modern-day Calvinistic Fundamentalism. Bottom line for me is that you can't be Reformed if you don't agree with the 5 points but you're not automatically Reformed just because you do.


----------



## Scot (Sep 5, 2007)

Definate atonement.


----------



## Calvibaptist (Sep 5, 2007)

SemperFideles said:


> I'll be honest with you guys. I used to think the sun rose and set on the acrostic but, these days, I'm always a bit skeptical of whether a person is Reformed if they call themselves simply a "5 point Calvinist". It's not that the points aren't useful to help counter certain doctrinal errors but it's about as useful to distill Calvinism into 5 points as it is to be defined as a Fundamentalist.
> 
> The "cage stage" of Calvinism is really those that want to make it their mission to convince of these specific points and little else. There are certainly some key doctrines within the 5 points but they are informed by other key doctrines and hermaneutical principles. A person who knows the 5 points and little else has no business trying to teach others about the Reformed faith.
> 
> ...



This is why, when I became convinced of the DoG, I shied away from the term Calvinist. Calvinism is much bigger than TULIP. Perhaps it is best to say Calvinist in Soteriology or to specify believing in DoG rather than just claim to be a Calvinist.

As for a Baptist who claims he subscribes to the WCF, that's just ridiculous. No Baptist should be able to claim that. If they do, they haven't read it. But, as has already been mentioned (maybe in another thread) hasn't the term "Reformed" changed over the years to be more specified now than it was in the 1600's?


----------



## Herald (Sep 5, 2007)

I'm fine with TULIP the way it is. It's not broken, no need to fix it.


----------



## panta dokimazete (Sep 5, 2007)

BaptistInCrisis said:


> I'm fine with TULIP the way it is. It's not broken, no need to fix it.



It is elegant in it's complex simplicity.


----------



## MW (Sep 5, 2007)

jdlongmire said:


> BaptistInCrisis said:
> 
> 
> > I'm fine with TULIP the way it is. It's not broken, no need to fix it.
> ...



 I agree there's more to reformed theology than tulip, but its not good to think of that "more" as being anything other than the same commitment to sovereign grace applied to a larger field of theological study.


----------



## Calvibaptist (Sep 5, 2007)

armourbearer said:


> jdlongmire said:
> 
> 
> > BaptistInCrisis said:
> ...



I agree. One of the things my eyes have been opened to (sovereignly!) is that the Bible just drips with the sovereignty of God. It is so much more than just election. It is a sovereign God glorifying Himself through every aspect of His creation.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Sep 5, 2007)

armourbearer said:


> jdlongmire said:
> 
> 
> > BaptistInCrisis said:
> ...



Very true. I don't want anyone to think I'm bagging on TULIP. The Canons of Dort are incredibly useful. Maybe I'm just thinking of the surface level apprehension of the terms that passes for people being able to call themselves "Calvinists". People who call themselves "4 point" Calvinists are even worse.

For instance, I think there is a great deal of theology tied up in Limited Atonement and a person's denial of it. But yet, even a person who says they accept it could have a really facile understanding of it.

Perhaps my frustration is that people stop at the "Chick Tract" level of TULIP but, indeed, there is much profundidity beyond the surface.


----------



## reformedman (Sep 5, 2007)

All of the discussion on this thread can be blamed and attributed to the dear fellow in my avatar. Lorraine Boettner. Monergism.com had a contest a while back that posed the question, "where can the first instance of the modern form of TULIP be found?" The best answer was Lorraine Boettner, the writer of the book that led me to the reformed baptist faith, _The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination._

My vote: Definite Atonement is better than Limited Atonement but honestly I would not change it because the acronym means so much to so many people. To me it means so much. It is sort of a Cliffs Notes to how God saves people. By it you can effectively, biblically, and correctly give the gospel to anyone; not stipulating the 5 separate doctrines, but instead, just explaining them biblically as the method by which God secures a perfect salvation.

sorry for the long post, I love speaking on the doctrine of grace


----------



## MW (Sep 5, 2007)

SemperFideles said:


> Perhaps my frustration is that people stop at the "Chick Tract" level of TULIP but, indeed, there is much profundidity beyond the surface.



Very true. I remember discussing P with a fellow, and showing the dynamic involved with it in relation to the warnings of Scripture. His view was so static he considered I was denying P because I maintained the warnings are means whereby the saints are preserved in covenant with God. The five points are an entrance into the wonderful world of sovereign grace; it's just plain sad when people don't get past the doorway.


----------



## Ivan (Sep 6, 2007)

SemperFideles said:


> It is actually of some concern to me that the Founder's Movement is based less on a systematic, Confessional movement and more on a rallying around 5 points like a modern-day Calvinistic Fundamentalism.



I agree, Rich. It's quite a mixed bag and I think for that reason it can never become another denomination or perhaps the influence it needs to be in the SBC.


----------



## Ivan (Sep 6, 2007)

Here's an interesting article related to the thread:

http://www.opc.org/new_horizons/NH01/07d.html


----------



## AV1611 (Sep 6, 2007)

I would keep them as they are


----------



## jacobiloved (Sep 15, 2007)

I prefer to call Limited Atonement "definite atonement" .

I also prefer the term efficacious grace , rather than irresistible grace .

but TULIP is here to stay , and seeing as Holland is famous for Tulips then it is fitting .


----------



## BJClark (Sep 15, 2007)

jawyman;




> I personally agree with all 5 points, it is just difficult to explain to someone that is not Reformed. The word "limited" sounds so exclusionary.



isn't God exclusionary?? (is that even a word??)

He says there is ONLY ONE WAY....sounds pretty exclusive to me..


----------



## toddpedlar (Sep 15, 2007)

jawyman said:


> I personally agree with all 5 points, it is just difficult to explain to someone that is not Reformed. The word "limited" sounds so exclusionary.



The doctrine itself is more offensive to the unbeliever than the word "limited", though... so if there's trouble in dealing with using that particular word to highlight a particular stance on soteriology, it's going to get much, much hairier when you actually come to describing what it means. I'm not sure, quite honestly, it's the best thing to choose language that sugar coats the truth in order to get a hearing, if what you're going to present the truth in more stark light later on...


----------



## Pilgrim's Progeny (Sep 15, 2007)

toddpedlar said:


> jawyman said:
> 
> 
> > I personally agree with all 5 points, it is just difficult to explain to someone that is not Reformed. The word "limited" sounds so exclusionary.
> ...



I love TULIP, straight up, no cream, no sugar, no fancy mug and you can keep the change. Can you imagine a market drive approach to presenting TULIP? Something like, "Transformed by the TULIP: How to petal your way to spiritual wholeness.", the lifechanging story of how one pastor got his theological groove back, and how you can too, if God wills. (Apologies offered if this offends you)


----------

