Calvinists/Reformed, Please help me explain TULIP.

[Jonaitis]

To deny this is close to Hyper-Calvinism.

 

[Jonaitis]

But when you make it conditional, it denies the intrinsic power of the atonement to save.

Salvation is in some sense conditional. Faith is a gift from God, the immediate response after the new birth, but it is the means to receive atonement. This means the death of Christ has to be actually effectual to the believing, our sins weren't already atoned before faith in Christ.

 

[Dave L]

Salvation is in some sense conditional. Faith is a gift from God, the immediate response after the new birth, but it is the means to receive atonement. This means the death of Christ has to be actually effectual to the believing, our sins weren't already punished before faith in Christ.

Why muddy the water for a guy simply wanting to explain the 5 points? Start a new thread if you want to debate.

 

[Dave L]

To deny this is close to Hyper-Calvinism.

To affirm it is to turn the gospel into law and make salvation by works.

 

[Dave L]

"The death of the Son of God is the only and most perfect sacrifice and satisfaction for sin; and is of infinite worth and value, abundantly sufficient to expiate the sins of the whole world."

- Canons of Dordt, Second Head, Third Article

But that was not the intent. It actually saved those for whom God intended.

 

[Jonaitis]

Why muddy the water for a guy simply wanting to explain the 5 points? Start a new thread if you want to debate.

I am not wanting to debate this, I simply wanted that to be reminded. Christ died for all that sin deserves, the elect receive the benefits by faith. This means that all who hear the gospel are responsible to believe, not just the elect. To suggest the power and blood is only sufficient for the elect assumes that unbelievers never really had an opportunity before them to begin with, and cannot be counted as guilty of rejecting what was never commanded (not offered) to them.

I'll leave it alone, I prefer to not argue.

 

[Jonaitis]

But that was not the intent. It actually saved those for whom God intended.

I agree, but it wasn't sufficient only for the elect.

Sufficiency and Scope/Intent are two separate things.

 

[Dave L]

I agree, but it wasn't sufficient only for the elect.

Sufficiency and Scope/Intent are two separate things.

That sounds nice but did God over punish Jesus wasting some of his suffering?

 

[Monk Brendan]

Greetings,

I first wanted to say upfront that I am not reformed however I have a friend who is expressing his disagreement (rather strongly) to 5 Point Calvinism (TULIP). I would prefer not have this turn into another Calvinism/Arminianism debate. Rather, I want to make sure that I am showing respect towards Reformed Denominations and the Christians who follow 5 Point Calvinism by ensuring that I am communicating what the doctrines actually mean as opposed to what many have been told to believe about them. I have read 'The Institutes' by Calvin and numerous other Reformed resources. So I feel like I have a fairly decent grasp on the topic. However, I would like to be able to break it down as simply as possible as if I was talking to a child. I will provide and example from my understanding. If you could please add, modify, delete or correct to help me be accurate and not spread inaccurate information. That would be very appreciative.

Total Depravity: It means everything about our being has been stained or corrupted by sin.

It doesn't mean we are "No Good". Rather, it means nothing about us is perfect so we have nothing worthy enough to offer God in return for our salvation. Salvation is through His grace alone. Further more, we have a will, however, it isn't free. Rather it is a slave to sin. We are dead to sin. Thus, to suggest that we can choose to be saved is like saying a prisoner can choose to walk out of their cell or a corpse can choose to come back to life. Only through God's grace is it possible to come to salvation.

Unconditional Election: God chooses His elect solely by His sovereign will. There are absolutely no conditions that are placed on us that will dictate whether or not God elects us. Thus, we cannot earn election nor can we loose election as a result of any actions on our part.

Limited Atonement: Although Christ died for everyone and the Atonement was offered universally, it is limited in application. It doesn't mean Christ died for only the elect. He died for all, but only the elect will have the atonement applied to their sins at the moment of justification.

Irresistible Grace: When God begins his work on his elect, it is impossible to turn away from it. Like a fly drawn to a flytrap, accepting the grace is inevitable. ​

Perseverance/Preservation of the Elect: Going back to the fly trap analogy. If Irresistible Grace is a fly drawn to a trap, Perseverance of the elect is a fly caught in the trap. Once are hearts are transformed by the renewing of the spirit, it is impossible to turn away from it. Theoretically we could choose to turn away from God. However, it would be actually impossible. As a result, the elect will persevere till the end. The elect will 'finish the race'.

Once again, I know these are very rudimentary explanations and much detail has been left out. But I am merely trying to communicate the basics to bring clarification and understanding of what TULIP actually means to address the misconceptions many people have. Thank you. ​

Actually, TULIP came from the Synod of Dort, and not from Jean Chauvin (to use his real name).

 

[Jonaitis]

That sounds nice but did God over punish Jesus wasting some of his suffering?

I never said Christ died for the reprobate. I have said enough, I will not argue anymore.

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

Hello, and thank you for the respect.

Total Depravity: It means everything about our being has been stained or corrupted by sin.

It doesn't mean we are "No Good". Rather, it means nothing about us is perfect so we have nothing worthy enough to offer God in return for our salvation. Salvation is through His grace alone. Further more, we have a will, however, it isn't free. Rather it is a slave to sin. We are dead to sin. Thus, to suggest that we can choose to be saved is like saying a prisoner can choose to walk out of their cell or a corpse can choose to come back to life. Only through God's grace is it possible to come to salvation.​

I think you explained what is meant by "total" well, and the relation between TD and grace alone (no boasting). With regards to the will, you might explain because of the whole nature of man, or every faculty of man is corrupted by sin, man is unable to please God in his natural state, while the will is free to unrighteousness, the will (fallen in Adam) is not free with regards to righteousness. With TD we see an absolute need for grace, a dependency on Christ to be all of our righteousness.

Unconditional Election:

God chooses His elect solely by His sovereign will. There are absolutely no conditions that are placed on us that will dictate whether or not God elects us. Thus, we cannot earn election nor can we loose election as a result of any actions on our part.

Yes, sovereign grace, salvation belongs to the Lord. This involves the doctrine of predestination, and it is helpful, even crucial to acknowledge the differences between the knowledge of the Creator and the creature. With UE we see grace applied, no room for boasting, all glory to God.

Limited Atonement:

Although Christ died for everyone and the Atonement was offered universally, it is limited in application. It doesn't mean Christ died for only the elect. He died for all, but only the elect will have the atonement applied to their sins at the moment of justification.

LA is perhaps the most difficult of the doctrines of grace to explain in part because of a degree of differences. I much prefer the phrase "Particular Redemption" because of how easily misconceptions come from the term "limited" and because most do not see even beloved verses like John 3:16 as limiting with "whosoever". One alternative way of perceiving the atonement is the atonement of Christ was sufficient for everyone but efficient for only the elect. With LA we see the righteousness of Christ applied and justification fulfilled by Christ alone.

Irresistible Grace:

When God begins his work on his elect, it is impossible to turn away from it. Like a fly drawn to a flytrap, accepting the grace is inevitable.

Another phrase I like to describe this doctrine is effectual grace or effectual calling to the elect alone where God alone monergistically regenerates a lost a wretched sinner, resurrecting dead faith to a living faith in Christ. It is irresistible because it is the work of God alone, and because it is a work of God alone it is supernatural, a miracle of grace. Because of TD, and the will enslaved to sin, all would turn away from the light because all men love darkness and flee from the light. With IG we see a sovereign God greater than the hearts of men.​

Perseverance/Preservation of the Elect:

Going back to the fly trap analogy. If Irresistible Grace is a fly drawn to a trap, Perseverance of the elect is a fly caught in the trap. Once are hearts are transformed by the renewing of the spirit, it is impossible to turn away from it. Theoretically we could choose to turn away from God. However, it would be actually impossible. As a result, the elect will persevere till the end. The elect will 'finish the race'.

With the doctrine of perseverance, what we see again is the sovereignty of God in preserving His chosen people for His glory, this puts the "amazing" into grace. God does not give up on His people but keeps His promises. Though we are covenant breakers, promise breakers, God is not like men in this, it is because He perseveres with His people that His people persevere with Him. Notice the hierarchy here, He who began a good work will complete it, not might, not maybe, no condition or dependency on man, but He will do it! Not because we're wiser, or anything of the sort, but because of God the Son, for His namesake and glory!

Once again, I know these are very rudimentary explanations and much detail has been left out. But I am merely trying to communicate the basics to bring clarification and understanding of what TULIP actually means to address the misconceptions many people have. Thank you.

​

Thank you for starting this topic and the friendly tone and seeking input. I hope this short response helps in some regard. God bless.

 

[Jonaitis]

Actually, TULIP came from the Synod of Dort, and not from Jean Chauvin (to use his real name).

I'll have to check later. Calvin's view of things in certain places doesn't agree with what is considered traditional Reformed (in many churches), ironically. He came before. I remember somewhere in his second book of the Institutes that he denies that we are imputed with Adam's transgression, as part of Original Sin. He views original sin only to be the transmitted nature that is corrupted in sin, and that is what condemns us. I use to agree with this.

 

[Maria Billingsley]

Greetings,

I first wanted to say upfront that I am not reformed however I have a friend who is expressing his disagreement (rather strongly) to 5 Point Calvinism (TULIP). I would prefer not have this turn into another Calvinism/Arminianism debate. Rather, I want to make sure that I am showing respect towards Reformed Denominations and the Christians who follow 5 Point Calvinism by ensuring that I am communicating what the doctrines actually mean as opposed to what many have been told to believe about them. I have read 'The Institutes' by Calvin and numerous other Reformed resources. So I feel like I have a fairly decent grasp on the topic. However, I would like to be able to break it down as simply as possible as if I was talking to a child. I will provide and example from my understanding. If you could please add, modify, delete or correct to help me be accurate and not spread inaccurate information. That would be very appreciative.

Total Depravity: It means everything about our being has been stained or corrupted by sin.

It doesn't mean we are "No Good". Rather, it means nothing about us is perfect so we have nothing worthy enough to offer God in return for our salvation. Salvation is through His grace alone. Further more, we have a will, however, it isn't free. Rather it is a slave to sin. We are dead to sin. Thus, to suggest that we can choose to be saved is like saying a prisoner can choose to walk out of their cell or a corpse can choose to come back to life. Only through God's grace is it possible to come to salvation.

Unconditional Election: God chooses His elect solely by His sovereign will. There are absolutely no conditions that are placed on us that will dictate whether or not God elects us. Thus, we cannot earn election nor can we loose election as a result of any actions on our part.

Limited Atonement: Although Christ died for everyone and the Atonement was offered universally, it is limited in application. It doesn't mean Christ died for only the elect. He died for all, but only the elect will have the atonement applied to their sins at the moment of justification.

Irresistible Grace: When God begins his work on his elect, it is impossible to turn away from it. Like a fly drawn to a flytrap, accepting the grace is inevitable. ​

Perseverance/Preservation of the Elect: Going back to the fly trap analogy. If Irresistible Grace is a fly drawn to a trap, Perseverance of the elect is a fly caught in the trap. Once are hearts are transformed by the renewing of the spirit, it is impossible to turn away from it. Theoretically we could choose to turn away from God. However, it would be actually impossible. As a result, the elect will persevere till the end. The elect will 'finish the race'.

Once again, I know these are very rudimentary explanations and much detail has been left out. But I am merely trying to communicate the basics to bring clarification and understanding of what TULIP actually means to address the misconceptions many people have. Thank you. ​

You may be struggling because it is a man made doctrine that defines Gods Character in such a way that it can not be reconciled with scripture.

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

I wouldn't explain perseverance of the Saints like flies in a trap either... that's weird and insulting to God and men. .

For example: Are you saved? Does God's Holy Spirit testify in your spirit that your a child of God? Have you been justified and do you truly believe in Jesus as your Lord and Savior?

Then your one of Gods elect and you will persevere on the path set before you just as the Bible says.

Not because your forced or because your trapped unto it, but out of love and devotion to your Lord and Savior.

You can say no to God and walk away, but God elect are more likely to end up like Jonah in the belly of a whale until they come around to Gods way of thinking if they do. Nothing like rock bottom to see the error of ones ways. "but, but, but, Nineveh!"

One of the things we learn when we are saved is that we are no more worthy than anyone else of God's mercy, and should desire for all what we desire for ourselves. Love is the highest calling - but this isn't force and it's not a trap, it's God's gentle correcting of His people if we find ourselves in error and in need of it..

Was Jonah right to desire God withhold mercy? Or was God right that it's God's right to have mercy on all whom He will?

It's not a trap when a parent prevents their child from running out into the street after a ball... it's protecting out of love - God loves us. We dont deserve it, but we are ever so grateful for it, and we love Him because He first loved us.

So.. there is that. Its not equal to a Venus fly trap.

That make sense. I just used the trap analogy to emphasize the impossibility of falling out or escaping the grace of God. Because well, its irresistible.

 

[St_Worm2]

Hi @jason_delisle, this article may prove useful to you. It's a kind of intro to the other Reformational "Five", the 5 Solas, which are as important to have a correct understanding of as the Doctrines of Grace (TULIP) are.

Sola Fide
Sola Gratia
Sola Scriptura
Solus Christus
Soli Deo Gloria

The Soul of the Solas
by R.C. Sproul Jr.

It puzzles me deeply that so few are puzzled deeply by the paradox. We are so used to the befuddling language that we miss its befuddling nature. It ought to stop us in our tracks and arrest our attention, like those signs I see for Fifth Third Bank. Fifth Bank I could understand. Third Bank I could understand. I could understand them merging to become Fourth Bank. But Fifth Third Bank? What does that even mean?

In like manner, how is it that when our spiritual ancestors, our theological heroes, set out to tell us one thing, they ended up telling us five things? Suppose I had lived in a cave for the last five hundred years and then met someone who wanted to get me up to speed on the Reformation and what I should believe. What if they said: “There are five things. The first one is sola…”? Would I not have to say: “Stop right there. If there are five, how can even one of them be called sola?”​

You can finish reading the rest of this short article here if you'd like to: The Soul of the Solas by R.C. Sproul Jr.

Also, if you are an Amazon Prime member, these two series by Dr. R C Sproul (the father of the author of the article I just posited for you above interestingly) are 'very' well done and I believe would be very useful to you (and they're both free ):

Amazon.com: Watch What Is Reformed Theology? | Prime Video

Amazon.com: Watch Chosen by God | Prime Video​

--David
p.s. - they are now free to watch at Dr. Sproul's website too apparently:

What Is Reformed Theology? by R.C. Sproul

Chosen By God by R.C. Sproul​

 

[nonaeroterraqueous]

That sounds nice but did God over punish Jesus wasting some of his suffering?

You know as well as anyone that it wasn't the degree of his suffering that was able to save the multitude, but it was the divinity and perfection of the one doing the suffering that had the power. Perfection is an absolute, a thing with an infinite quality. The suffering of the Perfect had limitless power to atone. Though it was the combination of Christ's perfection and his suffering that atoned, it was the perfection, rather than the suffering, that quantified the result.

 

[St_Worm2]

That make sense. I just used the trap analogy to emphasize the impossibility of falling out or escaping the grace of God. Because well, its irresistible.

Hi Jason, just FYI, Irresistible Grace is principally concerned with our coming to saving faith in Christ for the first time, while the Perseverance of the Saints concerns our remaining in the faith to the end (and the work that God does in our hearts and lives to preserve us/see us faithfully though this life to be with Him in Glory).

--David

 

[Dave L]

You know as well as anyone that it wasn't the degree of his suffering that was able to save the multitude, but it was the divinity and perfection of the one doing the suffering that had the power. Perfection is an absolute, a thing with an infinite quality. The suffering of the Perfect had limitless power to atone. Though it was the combination of Christ's perfection and his suffering that atoned, it was the perfection, rather than the suffering, that quantified the result.

This can lead to error in other passages. God is fair, Christ did not suffer for the reprobate.

 

[GingerBeer]

Tulip; a pretty flower

Can't get simpler than that!

 

[dms1972]

Hugh Martin, whose writing seems well regarded in Calvinist circles, wrote a book called The Atonement: and its relation to the Covenant, Priesthood, and Intercession of Our Lord. In it he says:

"The Doctrine of the Atonement ought to be discussed and defended as inside the Doctrine of the Covenant of Grace."

I'll quote at length so it can be seen his reasoning on why he thinks this:

III. A correct and comprehensive scheme of federal theology, in fact, commends itself very powerfully to every logical mind by the readiness with which it may be brought to bear on the exposure of the various aberrations that have manifested themselves on the doctrine of the Atonement. Take for instance, Dr Wardlaw's erroneous views, and place them in the light of the federal theology: they are immediately robbed of all their plausibility.

Dr Wardlaw held the notion of a universal, unlimited, or indefinite atonement, undertaken literally for all men, and accomplishing as much for every human being as for any. And being a believer in the doctrines of election and of the necessity of the Spirit's regenerating grace, he held that the sovereign purpose of God comes in afterwards, in the order of nature, to determine to whom the Atonement shall be rendered actually fruitful of saving results. This of course, is to acknowledge, in some sense, intentionally at least a covenant of grace. But it is a covenant conditioning not Christ's work, but merely the Spirit's. Of such a covenant, however, the scriptures contain not a single trace. The covenant which we deduce, by a large and satisfactory induction of particulars from Holy Scripture, is a covenant with Christ, concerning Christ's own work, - its nature, its objects, it beneficiaries, its rewards. And it is a covenant with the Spirit, only because it is a covenant with the CHRIST - the immeasurably Anointed One of God, anointed of the Holy Ghost, and endued with power to give the Spirit to as many as the Father hath given Him. To dislocate here, is to derange everything. To place Christ and His work outside the covenant, in order to give His redemption the aspect of larger graciousness and indefinite relations to all men universally, is to pervert the entire doctrine of the Covenant, - to turn aside, at its very fountain-head, that river the streams whereof make glad the city of God.

Moreover, under pretence of enlarging the aspects of Grace, it achieves most effectually a precisely opposite result. For, to bring in a covenant of grace in order to limit the application and circumscribe the effectual results of an atonement in its own nature and accomplished merit unlimited, is surely one of the most perverted and perverting schemes that could be adopted. To introduce a covenant of any kind as an instrument of limitation of a mercy, and of the actual blessings of a mercy, already in the field without limit, is surely too offensive to expect acceptance with thoughtful and generous minds - unless indeed very overwhelming evidence can be presented of its being verily the Divine method, clearly and unmistakably revealed to us. But to introduce a covenant of grace, as an instrument for the limitation of grace, is at once an insult to the human understanding and a travesty of the Divine wisdom. In any such view of its action and intent, it must assuredly cease to be called a covenant of grace. The grace is all in the prior arrangement of achievement, which it has been agreed on this scheme to call the Atonement; and the covenant is a covenant circumscribing the grace into limits narrower than its own. It is, therefore, a covenant, not of grace, but of alarming judgement.

Nay, more: it is a covenant of reasonless, arbitrary and capricious judgement. For it is utterly vain to call in, in arrest of this condemnatory criticism, any reference to the sovereignty of God. The Divine sovereignty is legitimately referred to at the earlier stage, as arranging a real Covenant of Grace - grace true and pure and simple - taking action from the first to provide and accept and apply a definite and complete atonement for the full free and sure salvation of the lost and guilty. Sovereignty is in its true place there and then: and its action there and then may be defended against all cavils whatsoever by the answers which the Spirit of God has provided against them: "May I not do what I will with my own?" "Who art thou, O man, that repliest against God?" For, from that point of view, and at that stage in the order of nature, sinners are contemplated as sinners simply, - in the eye of Divine justice guilty and righteously exposed to the wrath of God, helpless to relieve themselves from it, and with nothing as yet achieved by Heaven for their relief. And the question, Why is not atonement provided for all? is answered by the question, Why is atonement provided for any? To fall back on the Divine sovereignty here is perfectly legitimate, and indeed inevitable. But to fall back on the Divine sovereignty at a later stage, as Dr Wardlaw's capricious scheme of doctrine does, is utterly useless and unwarrantable. For if the sovereignty of God is called in at the later stage, at which a universal and unlimited atonement is seen, so to speak, to have taken the field, then sinners must be viewed, not simply sinners now, but sinners whose sin has been atoned for - whatever, on this scheme, that may mean. And a covenant coming into play at such a stage, to exclude, in point of fact, vast multitudes from all beneficial effects of an atonement, which, in its own nature, had as beneficial bearings on them as on any and all of those who are ultimately to be saved, - a covenant such as this, it is utter folly to call a covenant of grace. It is not a covenant of grace in any sense, but a covenant of judgement; and not a covenant of sovereignty, but of arbitrary and reasonless and terrific judgement. The objection, therefore, in deference to which a definite, effectual, and sure atonement is disparaged and set aside in favour of one that is indefinite and unlimited, - and from all the benefits of which, whatever these may be, an imaginary covenant interposes to exclude vast numbers of its beneficiaries, - reappears against the erroneous doctrine itself in a form the most aggravated and offensive, with relevancy which it is impossible to deny, and with a force which it is impossible to rebut.