TULIP as a straw man

[KaphLamedh]

I read review of Sproul´s Chosen by God book. Someone thought that according of TULIP or Calvinism, we are just robots.
Why do not people just find out what TULIP really means?
Why do someone automaticly think "heresy" when they hear word Calvinism or Calvin? I have notice that here in Finland and in some net-forums.
Sometimes TULIP has made be to a straw man, sometimes is feels at it is made on purpose.

I know TULIP doesn´t open at once. When I started to fins out what stands behind those five points I notices that, it is the same way I was thinking. And that´s the way I started to learn scriptures more. I gave motivation.

 

[jason d]

Why do not people just find out what TULIP really means?

I didn't have to find out what it meant cause I was raised and taught in church that it was wrong so just stay away from it like Mormonism, JW's, or any other cult.

Why do someone automaticly think "heresy" when they hear word Calvinism or Calvin?

Again, TRADITION! I was raised that way and thank God that He has reformed my thinking. I can't say that is the case for everyone but it was for me and for ALOT of people I personally now know.

 

[Christoffer]

I read review of Sproul´s Chosen by God book. Someone thought that according of TULIP or Calvinism, we are just robots.
Why do not people just find out what TULIP really means?
Why do someone automaticly think "heresy" when they hear word Calvinism or Calvin? I have notice that here in Finland and in some net-forums.
Sometimes TULIP has made be to a straw man, sometimes is feels at it is made on purpose.

I know TULIP doesn´t open at once. When I started to fins out what stands behind those five points I notices that, it is the same way I was thinking. And that´s the way I started to learn scriptures more. I gave motivation.

I think people run from calvinism because it is true and affirms Gods sovereignity and mans sinfullness. Truth disgusts the natural man.

I also think humanistic thinking has influenced christianity. We are free and we can shape our destiny, be like gods. God "has no right" to hold us responsible if we are not free.

 

[A.J.]

I read review of Sproul´s Chosen by God book. Someone thought that according of TULIP or Calvinism, we are just robots.
Why do not people just find out what TULIP really means?
Why do someone automaticly think "heresy" when they hear word Calvinism or Calvin? I have notice that here in Finland and in some net-forums.
Sometimes TULIP has made be to a straw man, sometimes is feels at it is made on purpose.

I know TULIP doesn´t open at once. When I started to fins out what stands behind those five points I notices that, it is the same way I was thinking. And that´s the way I started to learn scriptures more. I gave motivation.

The primary reason I can think of as to why many people reject Calvinism (and often immediately think of it as heresy) is that it is not natural for them to think of God as absolutely sovereign in anything that comes to pass. In their minds, for example, unconditional election is "unjust."

In the Philippines too, caricatures of Calvinism abound. More often than not, it is confused with the so-called "Once Saved, Always Saved" (OSAS) doctrine.

 

[SemperEruditio]

T.U.L.I.P. is as foreign to modern Christian ears as is the Gospel. When you are able to ask a group of 10 Christians what is the Gospel? and you get ten different answers and none of them correct....T.U.L.I.P. is the least of our worries.

The main thing to remember is that the acronym was a response to the Remonstrants. Calvinism cannot be simply summed up with T.U.L.I.P. The main thing that helps me deal with those who oppose Calvinism is in how they pray. Spurgeon talked about an Arminian prayer and I dare say I have never heard one. Everyone is a Calvinists on their knees. The Lord has opened the eyes of a few when I ask them who and what do they pray for when they pray for the salvation of another. At first they're perplexed but then when we slowly hash out that they are not praying to the "free-will" of the other person but for God to do something, with some, the scales begin to come off. In my failed experiences this is the part where you hang in there and patiently walk them through.

 

[KaphLamedh]

Spurgeon talked about an Arminian prayer and I dare say I have never heard one. Everyone is a Calvinists on their knees. The Lord has opened the eyes of a few when I ask them who and what do they pray for when they pray for the salvation of another.

In Amazong Grace DVD was also that arminian prayer that Spurgeon talked about. I have to watch it again.
Is it true that according the arminian theology could never pray "Our Father in heaven" prayer?

 

[Reformed Thomist]

Never have I seen Christians so quick to judge as with anti-Calvinist evangelicals on the Internet. You can't reason with them; their will to hate is in the way. They're the type of people who won't even let you finish making an argument before jumping all over you with emotionally-charged 'objections'. And answering those objections gets you nowhere, because they aren't really listening to you; they are merely waiting for the next chance to make a hate rant, their mind being 110% made up before you can say anything, despite their relative ignorance of the subject. You might as well be a Satanist to them.

When I left the Roman Catholic Church and became an evangelical, one happy side-effect, I thought, would be avoiding the kind of hatred/disrespect/bashing from (as I always saw them) fellow Christians that I had experienced as a card-carrying RC. Then I had to go and become a Calvinist...

 

[A.J.]

The "Arminian Prayer" is from Spurgeon's sermon Free Will - A Slave:

Fancy him [the Arminian] praying, "Lord, I thank thee I am not like those poor presumptuous Calvinists. Lord, I was born with a glorious free-will; I was born with power by which I can turn to thee of myself; I have improved my grace. If everybody had done the same with their grace that I have, they might all have been saved. Lord, I know thou dost not make us willing if we are not willing ourselves. Thou givest grace to everybody; some do not improve it, but I do. There are many that will go to hell as much bought with the blood of Christ as I was; they had as much of the Holy Ghost given to them; they had as good a chance, and were as much blessed as I am. It was not thy grace that made us to differ; I know it did a great deal, still I turned the point; I made use of what was given me, and others did not-- that is the difference between me and them."

 

[Scott1]

In our fallen natures, mankind wants to believe that in some way He can earn salvation and pardon for his sin.

In our sin, we imagine all sorts of rationalizations- we can do more "good" things than "bad" things and that ought prevail, "love" cannot include justice, we in ourselves determine ultimate fairness.

The rationalizations all boil down to a couple points:

1) man is not that sinful

2) God is not that holy

They flow from a bigger concept- the sovereignty of God.

Our ego, pride does not want to accept that we are totally, 100% completely dependent on the mercy on an omniscent God to escape justice for our sin.

Romans 1 tells us mankind, even in his unregenerate state has enough consciousness of God to know He demands we obey Him.

Yet, knowing that, we disobey- we worship things He has created, and not Him. This includes our own finite minds and understanding which we imagine as the measure of all things.

It is offensive to self centered creatures that we are to believe we are not "good" enough and cannot choose to be "good enough" to receive forgiveness, and merit the eternal blessings of Heaven from a Holy God whose standard is perfection.

It is offensive to our Creator that we imagine such.

In this regard, the doctrines of grace (Calvinism) "hits the nail on the head."

God really is sovereign, and vestiges of rebellion against that are in us all, overcome only by His grace.

Only by His grace.

 

[Marrow Man]

I saw this article (in Christian Century, of all places) pointing out the mistake of distilling the Reformed faith down to five points and the misunderstandings that can result. I commented on a blog post here.

 

[TeachingTulip]

I read review of Sproul´s Chosen by God book. Someone thought that according of TULIP or Calvinism, we are just robots.
Why do not people just find out what TULIP really means?
Why do someone automaticly think "heresy" when they hear word Calvinism or Calvin? I have notice that here in Finland and in some net-forums.
Sometimes TULIP has made be to a straw man, sometimes is feels at it is made on purpose.

I know TULIP doesn´t open at once. When I started to fins out what stands behind those five points I notices that, it is the same way I was thinking. And that´s the way I started to learn scriptures more. I gave motivation.

It has been my experience, that most people resist TULIP due to the fact they do not want to hear about the Doctrine of Total Depravity, which of course, is foundational to the teachings of the Doctrines of Grace.

Even church attendees desire to only hear about blessings and only to discuss their good works, rather than hear about sin and judgment.

Consequently, multitudes fail to comprehend and appreciate the grace of God and the necessity for the incarnation of Jesus Christ.

Without the teaching of human accountability according to the Law of God, the gospel becomes something other than what is taught in the Holy Scriptures.

In fact, in the new "emergent" churches, the preaching of the gospel has disappeared. A friend of mine brags that there are no sermons given in her church, but rather, helping others in practicial ways is emphasized.

How can so-called "Christians" effectively help others when they are still in spiritual ignorance and have yet to be reconciled with God?

Teaching TULIP is good, because it is sound, biblical teaching of a full gospel message.

 

[KaphLamedh]

I read review of Sproul´s Chosen by God book. Someone thought that according of TULIP or Calvinism, we are just robots.
Why do not people just find out what TULIP really means?
Why do someone automaticly think "heresy" when they hear word Calvinism or Calvin? I have notice that here in Finland and in some net-forums.
Sometimes TULIP has made be to a straw man, sometimes is feels at it is made on purpose.

I know TULIP doesn´t open at once. When I started to fins out what stands behind those five points I notices that, it is the same way I was thinking. And that´s the way I started to learn scriptures more. I gave motivation.

It has been my experience, that most people resist TULIP due to the fact they do not want to hear about the Doctrine of Total Depravity, which of course, is foundational to the teachings of the Doctrines of Grace.

Even church attendees desire to only hear about blessings and only to discuss their good works, rather than hear about sin and judgment.

Consequently, multitudes fail to comprehend and appreciate the grace of God and the necessity for the incarnation of Jesus Christ.

Without the teaching of human accountability according to the Law of God, the gospel becomes something other than what is taught in the Holy Scriptures.

In fact, in the new "emergent" churches, the preaching of the gospel has disappeared. A friend of mine brags that there are no sermons given in her church, but rather, helping others in practicial ways is emphasized.

How can so-called "Christians" effectively help others when they are still in spiritual ignorance and have yet to be reconciled with God?

Teaching TULIP is good, because it is sound, biblical teaching of a full gospel message.

Thanks for the message!

It´s really true that many people won´t accept that they are totally uncapable to do anything for searching God. People want some credit for it.

 

[MMasztal]

In fact, in the new "emergent" churches, the preaching of the gospel has disappeared. A friend of mine brags that there are no sermons given in her church, but rather, helping others in practicial ways is emphasized.

Is 64:6- "all our righteous acts are like filthy rags" and I would add that without a true saving faith, our righteous acts further condemn us if we don't acknowledge God's grace in allowing us to perform righteous acts, not for our pride, but for His glory.

 

[Notthemama1984]

Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated.

That is by far the coolest smiley

 

[Semper Fidelis]

To the OP, do you remember in school how many "slackers" there were? Can you count on one hand how many people actually fully applied themselves to learning?

Quite frankly, the average person is slothful. I struggle with sloth myself.

It takes effort to understand things and most people don't want to apply themselves. I run into men all the time that tell me that theology is "hard" but can quote Sports statistics and players on teams in a way that boggles the mind. I wonder where they find the time to keep track of it all.

Consequently, this world lives on sound bites. We Reformed are often not less guilty than others where we "play the crowd" on an issue. It gets the base fired up so the discussion ends before it starts.

Thus, Calvinism "...makes us robots..." plays to the base. It plays to the flesh. It allows people who are otherwise content to be slothful to live unexamined lives.

I'm increasingly convinced that Christ used Parables because it was a convenient way for the "hard of hearing" to think they understood the teaching at an earthy and "makes sense to me" while the deeper meaning was going to involve the pursuit of Christ and wisdom.

 

[carlgobelman]

T.U.L.I.P. is as foreign to modern Christian ears as is the Gospel. When you are able to ask a group of 10 Christians what is the Gospel? and you get ten different answers and none of them correct....T.U.L.I.P. is the least of our worries.

I'm not sure I agree with this statement. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't TULIP essentially the gospel? The Five Points are commonly referred to as the Doctrines of Grace, and they describe precisely how God saves the spiritually dead sinner and brings him along to glorification.

To me, that's the gospel in a nutshell.

-----Added 12/18/2009 at 12:28:35 EST-----

Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated.

Like the Borg smilie!

 

[student ad x]

Never have I seen Christians so quick to judge as with anti-Calvinist evangelicals on the Internet. You can't reason with them; their will to hate is in the way. They're the type of people who won't even let you finish making an argument before jumping all over you with emotionally-charged 'objections'. And answering those objections gets you nowhere, because they aren't really listening to you; they are merely waiting for the next chance to make a hate rant, their mind being 110% made up before you can say anything, despite their relative ignorance of the subject. You might as well be a Satanist to them....

Hello brother,

If my PB brethren would allow a somewhat quasi off-topic response. I agree about the 'tone' of conversations online (in 'informal' debating forums) and their caricature of 'reformed' theology. The vitriol that is being espoused by some of our synergistic friends online has helped me to be 'burnt out' in trying to have a friendly discussion about the things of God. For some time, I re-evaluated myself wondering if I was posting in a style that was abrasive. While I was looking inwardly to the Lord to guard me against pride, I began to see more clearly the pride of others while they were maintaining their idol of free will.

The internet is a dangerous place........... for the younger Christian and even more mature brethren who can be tempted to give into anger and malice.

I pray for our synergist friends, but I'm unsure at this point how useful the medium of online informal debate is.


humbly,

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

The internet is a dangerous place........... for the younger Christian and even more mature brethren who can be tempted to give into anger and malice.

I pray for our synergist friends, but I'm unsure at this point how useful the medium of online informal debate is.

I hear you, sax. What keeps me at it in many discussion forums, despite the increase in my blood pressure at times, is my belief that for every single pair of eyes directly participating in a discussion thread, that there is likely 5-10 other sets of eyeballs lurking, reading, and thinking. So my efforts are directed at these silent viewers in hopes that what I may have to say on the matters of faith, resonates with these persons. Participating in some forums can be ennervating, and it is sites like this one that I retreat to when I need to re-energize myself with those who are like-minded. After a good re-charge, then it's back into the fray!

AMR

 

[Reformed Thomist]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't TULIP essentially the gospel? The Five Points are commonly referred to as the Doctrines of Grace, and they describe precisely how God saves the spiritually dead sinner and brings him along to glorification.

To me, that's the gospel in a nutshell.

All who believe TULIP to be true necessarily believe the Gospel to be true (at least on an intellectual level), for the former entails (or contains) the latter, but one may believe the Gospel to be true without necessarily believing TULIP to be true in its entirety.

TULIP is, if you will, a more complete account of the Gospel message, touching upon specifics. But the Gospel message may be given without getting into the finer points of how a person comes to be saved. For instance, John 3:16 -- For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life -- is a brief expression of the Gospel, but an expression of the Gospel nonetheless.

 

[TeachingTulip]

one may believe the Gospel to be true without necessarily believing TULIP to be true in its entirety.

Which of the Doctrines of Grace can be omitted, in your opinion, without affecting one's gospel message?

 

[Skyler]

one may believe the Gospel to be true without necessarily believing TULIP to be true in its entirety.

Which of the Doctrines of Grace can be omitted, in your opinion, without affecting one's gospel message?

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but the Gospel is that Jesus, the Son of God, was born of a virgin, took on human flesh, suffered and died for our sins, and rose again to save those who believe from their sins, is it not?

edit: With this in mind, outright rejection of the Tulip does entail rejection of the Gospel; however, partial rejection (or, if you will, partial acceptance) is possible without detracting the essentials from the Gospel message.

 

[TeachingTulip]

one may believe the Gospel to be true without necessarily believing TULIP to be true in its entirety.

Which of the Doctrines of Grace can be omitted, in your opinion, without affecting one's gospel message?

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but the Gospel is that Jesus, the Son of God, was born of a virgin, took on human flesh, suffered and died for our sins, and rose again to save those who believe from their sins, is it not?

edit: With this in mind, outright rejection of the Tulip does entail rejection of the Gospel; however, partial rejection (or, if you will, partial acceptance) is possible without detracting the essentials from the Gospel message.

Which of the five Doctrines of Grace do you believe to be non-essential?

 

[Reformed Thomist]

one may believe the Gospel to be true without necessarily believing TULIP to be true in its entirety.

Which of the Doctrines of Grace can be omitted, in your opinion, without affecting one's gospel message?

In my opinion, the Gospel may be expressed without getting into the specifics of man's fallenness (just that we are in need of being saved, need a Savior); without getting into election or its unconditionality at all; just that Christ died for our sins and that He is the Way (without mentioning that Christ died specifically for some, secured their salvation); and without mentioning efficaciousness of grace or the perseverance of the saints (although the latter is somewhat implied by the mention of justification by faith, an essential component of the Gospel).

In any case, one is left in a pretty hard position if his definition of the Gospel is the Five Points of Calvinism, so that those who are not five-point Calvinists do not possess the Gospel... no? Personally, I'm not in the business of winning souls (instrumentally, of course) for Calvinism -- Calvinism, much as I believe in and love it, is not my religion -- and I pity the man who is.

 

[Skyler]

Which of the Doctrines of Grace can be omitted, in your opinion, without affecting one's gospel message?

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but the Gospel is that Jesus, the Son of God, was born of a virgin, took on human flesh, suffered and died for our sins, and rose again to save those who believe from their sins, is it not?

edit: With this in mind, outright rejection of the Tulip does entail rejection of the Gospel; however, partial rejection (or, if you will, partial acceptance) is possible without detracting the essentials from the Gospel message.

Which of the five Doctrines of Grace do you believe to be non-essential?

You're framing the question to inevitably point towards your conclusion--that belief in Calvinism is necessary to be a Christian.

What I'm saying is that the five points of Calvinism are not discrete units that are either believed entirely or not believed at all--rather, it is possible to believe parts of each of those five points while not believing the whole of a particular point.

So it's not that "one of the five points is non-essential". It's that parts of the five points are nonessential.

 

[TeachingTulip]

one may believe the Gospel to be true without necessarily believing TULIP to be true in its entirety.

Which of the Doctrines of Grace can be omitted, in your opinion, without affecting one's gospel message?

In my opinion, the Gospel may be expressed without getting into the specifics of man's fallenness (just that we are in need of being saved, need a Savior);

Do you do not deny man has fallen, but you deny that is a necessary truth to explain God sacrificing His Son?

without getting into election or its unconditionality at all;

So you do not deny God has elected to save souls, but His reasons for doing so, and how He did so, and in Whom He did so, should not be revealed?

just that Christ died for our sins and that He is the Way (without mentioning that Christ died specifically for some, secured their salvation);

So you do not deny that Jesus Christ sacrificed His life for sinners, but you believe it should be preached that His atonement was universal for all?

and without mentioning efficaciousness of grace or the perseverance of the saints (although the latter is somewhat implied by the mention of justification by faith, an essential component of the Gospel).

Sir, with your first three rejections of truth, you have eliminated all basis and foundation by which understanding of grace, justification, and perseverance of the sons of God, was achieved by Jesus Christ on the cross.

In any case, one is left in a pretty hard position if his definition of the Gospel is the Five Points of Calvinism, so that those who are not five-point Calvinists do not possess the Gospel... no?

To be honest, I believe you have denied the true gospel of God by your denials all five points of TULIP.

I have no clue as to what "good news" you have left, after what you have now publically rejected!

Personally, I'm not in the business of winning souls (instrumentally, of course) for Calvinism -- Calvinism, much as I believe in and love it, is not my religion -- and I pity the man who is.

Glad you said this for yourself, otherwise I would have made the charge against you as being not Reformed at all . . .now I do not have to.

 

[Skyler]

TeachingTulip, you're treating each of the five points of Calvinism as indivisible--as if you have to either believe all of the point or none of the point. That's simply not the case.

 

[TeachingTulip]

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but the Gospel is that Jesus, the Son of God, was born of a virgin, took on human flesh, suffered and died for our sins, and rose again to save those who believe from their sins, is it not?

edit: With this in mind, outright rejection of the Tulip does entail rejection of the Gospel; however, partial rejection (or, if you will, partial acceptance) is possible without detracting the essentials from the Gospel message.

Which of the five Doctrines of Grace do you believe to be non-essential?

You're framing the question to inevitably point towards your conclusion--that belief in Calvinism is necessary to be a Christian.

I never made such a claim, but simply responded to your post that claims the gospel can be proclaimed even while omitting some (or all five?) Doctrines of Grace.

What I'm saying is that the five points of Calvinism are not discrete units that are either believed entirely or not believed at all--rather, it is possible to believe parts of each of those five points while not believing the whole of a particular point.

Yes, and all I am asking if for you to clarify what you consider necessary and believable versus non-essential and therefore subject to unbelief.

So it's not that "one of the five points is non-essential". It's that parts of the five points are nonessential.

What parts?

Ronda

 

[Skyler]

Which of the five Doctrines of Grace do you believe to be non-essential?

I never made such a claim, but simply responded to your post that claims the gospel can be proclaimed even while omitting some (or all five?) Doctrines of Grace.

Some parts of the five points.

Yes, and all I am asking if for you to clarify what you consider necessary and believable versus non-essential and therefore subject to unbelief.

So it's not that "one of the five points is non-essential". It's that parts of the five points are nonessential.

What parts?

Ronda

I already clarified what I recall are the essential parts:

"Jesus, the Son of God, was born of a virgin, took on human flesh, suffered and died for our sins, and rose again to save those who believe from their sins."

As I said, I'm open to being corrected if I'm wrong.

 

[TeachingTulip]

TeachingTulip, you're treating each of the five points of Calvinism as indivisible--as if you have to either believe all of the point or none of the point. That's simply not the case.

Yes, you are correct.

I consider the Doctrines of Grace to hinge upon each other, and I believe that removal or rejection of any one of the five points of TULIP will affect the whole gospel message contained therein.

In other words,'s, my defensive battle for TULIP is a deliberate battle to retain and maintain the true and full Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Ronda

 

[Reformed Thomist]

Where have I 'denied' or 'rejected' anything, Ronda? I was merely stating that/how the Gospel message may be defined without the inclusion of the fullness of the Five Points of Calvinism. I'm not denying the truth of any of the Five Points (I positively, wholeheartedly affirm them)!

And then you go ahead and effectively charge me with being not Reformed -- on the basis of my statement that Reformed theology is not my religion (despite Reformed theology not being a religion -- which is why I said it) -- and directly charge me with "denying the true gospel of God"...?

Wow.