Calvinism: Tiptoe through the TULIP

It depends, some advocates of Reformed theology say, on whether Christians on both sides are willing to tiptoe through the TULIP–the acrostic for five doctrinal points that set apart Calvinists.

TULIP stands for total depravity, unconditional election, limited atonement, irresistible grace and perseverance of the saints. Those five doctrines, delineated by the Synod of Dort in the 17th century, summarize distinctive elements of the theological system taught by John Calvin—particularly as distinguished from the teachings of James Jacobus Arminius.

Proponents of what often is called “five-point Calvinism” emphasize the sovereignty of God and the doctrine of predestination—the teaching that God ordains specific human beings to be saved on the basis of his good pleasure, not on the basis of his advance knowledge of their repentance and belief.

Historically, some prominent Baptists identified themselves as Calvinists, including 19th century British pulpiteer Charles Haddon Spurgeon and James P. Boyce, founding president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. On the other hand, the first Baptists in England—John Smyth and Thomas Helwys—rejected Calvinism.

Calvinism is gaining in popularity in some Baptist circles today. A study by the Southern Baptist North American Mission Board and LifeWay Christian Resources showed about 30 percent of recent Southern Baptist seminary graduates identify themselves as Calvinists, compared to 10 percent of Southern Baptist pastors in general.

Renewed interest in Reformed theology—what Calvinists refer to as “the doctrines of grace”—also is evident among university students, some Baptist college professors have noted. In part, observers attribute the growth of Calvinism on college campuses to the popular Passion conferences, featuring Louie Giglio and Reformed pastor-theologian John Piper.

The Passion movement and related One Day events serve as gateways into Calvinism, said Roger Olson, professor of theology at Baylor University’s Truett Theological Seminary.

“My experience is that many young Christians swept up by this wave know little about the details of this kind of Calvinism,” Olson said. “Many of them are simply shocked to find out that it entails belief in limited atonement. However, after awhile, many of them gradually accept it lock, stock and barrel because they don’t know any alternative. Southern Baptists—and offshoots—have not been very good at offering young people sound theology.”

Hunger for theology that is “rigorously biblical and satisfies the desire to hear from God in his word” accounts for much of Calvinism’s popularity among students, said Thomas Ascol, executive director of Founders Ministries, an organization that promotes Reformed theology in Southern Baptist life.

“The rising generation is looking for authenticity,” Ascol said. Students read biblical stories about faithful people who suffered martyrdom, and they hunger for “the radicalness of biblical Christianity,” he noted.

“Then they look at the slick and oftentimes superficial Christianity that dominates American evangelicalism, and they wonder why there is a difference. What did those early believers see we don’t see? Part of the answer is they saw the majestic supremacy of God over every sphere of life.”

Ascol believes Piper “has been used of God to help cast a vision of radically biblical Christianity to a younger generation of believers.”

“There is no fluff in Piper’s ministry. It is rock-solid Bible teaching that does not shy away from the hard sayings and clear calls of discipleship,” he said. “It is authentic in its devotion to the text of Scripture. That resonates with many in the younger generation who are hungry for truth.”

Critics of resurgent Calvinism, on the other hand, see it as appealing to the desire for clear-cut, black-and-white answers.

“The present, new Calvinists claim to know way, way too much about the mind of God,” Olson claimed.

He draws a distinction between the gentle and nuanced Calvinism held by many Christians in Reformed churches and the aggressive new form of Calvinism.

“My experience is that this new wave of Reformed theology—inspired by John Piper who is inspired by Jonathan Edwards—appeals mostly to young men who want to avoid any hint of ambiguity in their theology,” he said.

In part because its adherents hold to its teachings so tenaciously, Calvinism has divided some congregations—particularly when Calvinist pastors have asserted their beliefs in historically non-Calvinist churches. To some degree, division may be inevitable, some Calvinists have asserted.

“Any given doctrine will divide. The gospel itself is a doctrine that divides,” said Jonathan Leeman, director of communications for 9Marks, a ministry founded by Reformed Baptist pastor Mark Dever.

“There has been a renewed emphasis on the doctrines of grace, and that could lead to some level of divisiveness. That’s almost necessarily so, in the same way that an emphasis on inerrancy led to division within the Southern Baptist Convention.”

But other Calvinists believe they have been unjustly tarred with the brush of divisiveness.

“What I have discovered is that Calvinism is blamed far more often for dividing churches or associations than is actually the case,” Ascol said. “Closer investigation has often revealed that Calvinism is often the tail on which the donkey is pinned. I know of more cases where the real issue behind a controversy is biblical Christianity—what is a Christian and how does a person become one—not Calvinism.”

Ascol also believes Calvinists often have been unfairly stereotyped as anti-missionary.

“Look at who has been going as career missionaries over the last few years. A significant percentage would classify themselves as Reformed,” he said.

Olson acknowledged the current wave of Calvinism—which he calls “Piperism”—is characterized by fervent missionary spirit.

“However, I think those who follow it out to its logical conclusion may eventually decide that there is no point in evangelism or missions,” he said.

“If you are told that your evangelism and missionary work is nothing more than a ‘foreordained means to a foreordained end,’ and it cannot alter what God has already decided, you might conclude that there is no urgency.”

Leeman frames the impetus for sharing faith in terms familiar to most evangelicals, whether Calvinist or non-Calvinist—love and obedience.

“Being that Christ is my greatest love, I will want to share him with others,” he said, adding that Jesus commanded his followers to share the gospel. “The call to repentance and obedience is not optional.”

But concern about Calvinism’s impact on fulfilling Christ’s Great Commission is a valid concern, even if it’s not well founded, Leeman added.

“The primary cause of division over the issue (of Calvinism) is concern on the part of the non-Reformed crowd that it will hurt evangelism and missions, and those of us who are Reformed need to be entirely sympathetic to that concern,” he said.

“At the same time, instead of debating issues with us, I would like to see the non-Reformed crowd give us the benefit of the doubt. Accept that a Reformed congregation means what it says when it affirms evangelism and missions.”

Ironically, the debate over the doctrines of grace often has been characterized by a lack of grace by proponents on both sides, and much of the division caused by Calvinism could be avoided if Christians treated each other a bit more graciously, some Calvinists and non-Calvinists agreed.

“I love my Calvinist friends and students,” Olson said. “I have no quarrel with them; it is only with their theology I have a quarrel. And I do not attempt to convert my Calvinist students to non-Calvinism. I only ask them to study all the options and make sure they are thinking biblically and logically.”

Shared belief about Jesus Christ and biblical authority should be sufficient ground for Calvinists and non-Calvinists to share the same pews peacefully, Ascol said.

“Our church has Calvinists and non-Calvinists joyfully laboring together for the gospel, and I know of many other churches that do, too,” he said.

“We do that by focusing on the gospel—who Jesus is, what he has done and why that matters. We may not agree on every detail of how the gospel works—such as election, predestination, effectual calling and particular redemption—but we are all committed to the Lordship of Jesus Christ and his supremacy over all of life.”

Leeman acknowledged some Calvinists are so adamant about their position that they have failed to show “pastoral wisdom” in making distinctive Reformed doctrines a test of fellowship.

“A wiser course is to avoid the language of theology and use the language of the Bible instead,” he suggested. “It’s not so much about Calvinism. It’s not so much about the doctrines of grace. Just preach the Bible.”

When I was a child in Texas, I went to a United Methodist Church and then a Southern Baptist.

I’m in California now, and I’m attending a non-denominational church that is thinking about joining the Sovereign Grace movement.

My daughters go to a Christian school sponsored by a Christian Reformed church.

To tell you the truth, I don’t know all the differences in beliefs, except that the UMC has gotten very liberal since I was a child. I can tell a difference in worship style.

I don’t really know what being reformed is.

I’m also trying to get more information about the Sovereign Grace movement. I know it is reformed and is a little bit charismatic.

What don’t you like about Calvinism and especially Piper-style Calvinist.

What don’t you like about Calvinism and especially Piper-style Calvinist.

Well, I'll begin by saying that some of what Calvinists teach, I am in agreement with. I would agree with the "perseverence" of the saints (P in the TULIP, though I would prefer the term "preservation", since that emphasises that it is God doing the preserving, not the saints persevering for themselves. I would agree that once a soul is saved, they remain saved. Should a soul leave the faith, it is because that person was never saved in the first place - their profession of faith was false.

Total depravity (sometimes called inability - the T in TULIP) I would partially agree with. I do not believe man can save himself, or even contribute in part to his own salvation. I do not believe man needs to "enter into a covenant" through baptism, which is then aided, abetted, or finished through his works. I DO, however, believe that man is capable of responding to the grace God proffers to man. God extends the grace, man merely accepts through the faith God likewise imparts. Man has to make the choice for himself whether to accept, however. The Scripture makes it quite clear that man is responsible for his choice as to what to do with Christ, and responsibility (if we're to hold a rational view of God as fair) implies competency to make the choice for or against God's offer of salvation.

Unconditional election (U in TULIP), I would agree with - with caveats. I do not believe that God declared from eternity past who is to be saved, and who is to be damned. He knew (had foreknowledge) of who would go either way, but I do not impart an unbiblical foreCHOICE to the aforementioned foreknowledge. Election, as it appears in the Bible, does not deal so much with salvation as it does with service. God elects people to service, and it is this gift and calling of God which is irrevocable. To the extent that we are rpedestinated, it applies only to those who make the choice to trust in Christ, and who then are predestinated to be conformed to the image of His Son (Romans 8:29). Predestination applies to service and God's work in us AFTER salvation, not TO salvation itself.

Limited atonement is completely unscriptural (L in TULIP). Calvinists have to come up with completely ridiculous definitions of words like "all" and "world" to try to force limited atonement into the Scripture. The Word clearly tells us that Christ died for the whole world, He died for ALL sinners. This includes those who reject Him. IIPeter 2:1 says that there will be false teachers, teaching damnable heresies, who bring upon themselves swift destruction (i.e. they will be eternally lost), who were yet bought by the Lord. His shed blood atoned for theirs sins as well as for those who are saved. Again, this atonement is completely efficacious - what fails is MAN, when he fails to respond to the grace of God offered.

I also find Irresistable Grace (I in TULIP) to be fallacious. Stephen, in his preaching, clearly told his unbelieving audience that they "do always resist the Holy Ghost" (Acts 7:51). What was the Holy Ghost doing? Working in their hearts to draw them to Christ through the preaching of Stephen, just as He had done in times past with their forefathers through the preaching of other prophets and teachers.

As such, I find Calvinism to be a partially biblical theological system at best. I jokingly call myself a "two-and-a-half point" Calvinist, but really, I actually prefer the term "Biblicist", since I claim neither Calvinism nor Arminianism (which is also erroneous in many respects, being the photographic negative of Calvinism as generally understood).

Now, with respect to Piper and those like him, my main problem (aside from the Calvinistic theology) is that they tend to make "grace" into an excuse to just do whatever you like. Piper and his crew would be the first to argue against Biblical standards of behaviour, especially in areas like dress, music, etc. They often seem to argue that grace is an excuse to sin (and this view is historical in some strains of Calvinism - see the supralapsarianism post above, where one point is the explicit rejection of the Law completely). Grace is NOT an excuse or a opening to sin. Grace is NOT a rejection or abolishment of the Law. Grace, rather is what allows Christians to live by God's Law, doing so joyfully and in the Spirit, rather than by the dead letter as some sort of "means to salvation". Christ is the end of the Law for righteousness. He is the end of the Law insomuch as one trusts in Christ, rather than in keeping the Law (as the Pharisees did) for salvation. Christ is what gives righteousness, not keeping the Law. BUT, Christ did not abolish the moral standards which God established in His Word. As Christians, we are still to live by those standards, but joyfully and in the power of the Spirit as we strive to please God. Piper and his crowd often seem to miss this, and turn the grace of our Lord into lasciviousness, as Jude 4 warns us many teachers would do.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.