"Doctrines of Grace", "TULIP", Augustine and Calvin

[Thomas Helwys]

Since the thread was closed before anyone answered my question there, I am starting this thread hoping to get an answer:

Will someone kindly explain the difference between "Doctrines of Grace" and TULIP. Which petal(s) of the TULIP would DoG adherents not hold?

 

[OldRegular]

Since my thread was closed?? I will give you my response here!

Since the thread was closed before anyone answered my question there, I am starting this thread hoping to get an answer:

Will someone kindly explain the difference between "Doctrines of Grace" and TULIP. Which petal(s) of the TULIP would DoG adherents not hold?

It is my opinion that these Five Points of Calvinism, called TULIP, were never intended to present fully the Doctrines of the Sovereign Grace of God in Salvation, and they certainly do not. Rather they were simply a response to the Five Articles of the Remonstrants, followers of Jacobus Arminius.

Recall that the Doctrine that many credit with initiating the Reformation was Luther's assertion that Justification is by Faith Alone. There is no mention of the Doctrine of Justification by Faith Alone in the Five Points insofar as I have read. Yet what Baptist would deny the Grace of God in Justification?

Martyn Lloyd-Jones, regarding Luther’s dilemma [page 169, God The Holy Spirit] writes:

“The crux of the matter is this: the great mistake we all tend to fall in, as Luther had done, with regard to justification, is that we tend to think that we are made righteous or good or upright or holy. But it is quite wrong. In justification we are not made righteous, we are declared to be righteous - the thing is quite different. To say that in justification you are made righteous is to confuse it with sanctification. Justification is something legal or forensic. It is God, as the Judge, who is responsible for administering His own law, saying to us that as regards the law He is satisfied with us because of the righteousness of Christ. Justification is a declaratory act. It does not do anything to us; it says aomething about us. It has no reference to my actual state or condition inside; it has reference to my standing, to my position, to my appearing in the presence of God.”

Although justification is an act of the Grace of God it is not at the expense of the righteousness of God as is demonstrated in the following Scripture. A righteous God cannot overlook sin for the wages of sin is death [Romans 6:23].

Romans 3:24-27, KJV
24. Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:
25. Whom God hath set forth [to be] a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;
26. To declare, [I say], at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.
27. Where [is] boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith.

The definitive truth in the above passage as it regards the justification of the believer is Verse 24: Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: and then Verse 26: To declare, [I say], at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus. We see that it is God who justifies and He justifies, yet remains just, only because of the righteousness of Jesus Christ. Faith is simply the instrument through which God imputes the righteousness of Jesus Christ to the believer.

We may say then that justification is a judicial or forensic act of God whereby the unjust sinner is declared righteous, not made righteous, in the sight of a Just and Holy God.

John Dagg [page 265, Manual of Theology] notes that justification is a higher blessing of grace than pardon or forgiveness. - From this I conclude that pardon frees from the penalty of sin, justification frees us from the guilt of sin.

I believe there is much more in the Doctrines of Grace than TULIP! Furthermore, I believe that TULIP has become a pejorative much as Calvinism has!

 

[Jerome]

So just how many doctrines comprise the so-called 'Doctrines of Grace'?

 

[OldRegular]

So just how many doctrines comprise the so-called 'Doctrines of Grace'?

How about 66 Books!

 

[12strings]

Since the thread was closed before anyone answered my question there, I am starting this thread hoping to get an answer:

Will someone kindly explain the difference between "Doctrines of Grace" and TULIP. Which petal(s) of the TULIP would DoG adherents not hold?

They are two descriptors of the same thing. Doctrines of Grace is simply another moniker for describing the doctrines summarized in TULIP.

Now, Some may use either term to differentiate between themselves and a full=fledged "Calvinist", or full-fledged "reformed". (one who also believes in infant baptism and presbyterian church government). It is my understanding that some Presby's would not consider a Tulip/DOG baptist to be fully reformed, or a "real calvinist.

But to repeat the main point, Tulip and DOG have no difference. (though some Free-willers object to the Calvinists use of "Doctrines of grace," saying that it assumes arminians don't believe in grace.)

 

[thomas15]

Since the thread was closed before anyone answered my question there, I am starting this thread hoping to get an answer:

Will someone kindly explain the difference between "Doctrines of Grace" and TULIP. Which petal(s) of the TULIP would DoG adherents not hold?

So just how many doctrines comprise the so-called 'Doctrines of Grace'?

And or which Doctrine of Grace would a TULIP not hold?

You are asking a great question Thomas. I would also like to know the answer. I would like to know can an individual be saved by the shed blood of Jesus without embracing what is called the "Doctrines of Grace". If an individual doesn't embrace the Doctrines of Grace but are trusting in Christ are they really saved? Are those who espouse the Doctrines of Grace the only ones saved by grace?

Before the reformation of the 16th century, who taught the Doctrines of Grace? Are the Doctrines of Grace in the writings of the ECFs? Where are the Doctrines of Grace taught in the Old Testament?

 

[OldRegular]

So just how many doctrines comprise the so-called 'Doctrines of Grace'?

Gems of Salvation not mentioned in TULIP

1. Union with Jesus Christ

2. Conversion

3. Saving Faith

4. Repentence

5. Pardon or Forgiveness

6. Justification {Previously Mentioned in Post #2}

7. Adoption

8. Sanctification

9. Assurance

10. Glorification, including the Resurrection of the Body

Anyone interested in these gems can find all discussed in The Bible by God and several discussed in God the Holy Spirit by Martyn Lloyd Jones or Manual of Theology by John Dagg and certainly elsewhere.

 

[12strings]

I went back and read the end of the closed thread refered to in the OP, and I think I understand what OR is saying, which may be something like this:

The Entire Doctrine of Scripture, which in his view aligns with what has become known as calvinism/DoG/Tulip/Reformed soteriology... existed long before it was put forth in Tulip form, and Tulip doesn't fully explain that belief system, rather it expresses only the 5 points that were called into question by the arminians....Just as the Nicene creed does not explain everything the church beleived for the first few hundred years, but seeks to address what the thought were important points to make in light of current challenges.

Nevertheless...in current contexts, DOG nearly always refers to those who agree with the Tulip.

 

[OldRegular]

I went back and read the end of the closed thread refered to in the OP, and I think I understand what OR is saying, which may be something like this:

The Entire Doctrine of Scripture, which in his view aligns with what has become known as calvinism/DoG/Tulip/Reformed soteriology... existed long before it was put forth in Tulip form, and Tulip doesn't fully explain that belief system, rather it expresses only the 5 points that were called into question by the arminians....Just as the Nicene creed does not explain everything the church beleived for the first few hundred years, but seeks to address what the thought were important points to make in light of current challenges.

Nevertheless...in current contexts, DOG nearly always refers to those who agree with the Tulip.

Thanks 12strings! I believe you have expressed well what I have been trying to say. One of the major problems with the acronym TULIP and the name Calvinism is that they have become such pejoratives they have a negative impact on what I believe Scripture teaches about the Sovereign Grace of God.

In an earlier post I gave a short answer to Jeromes question: "So just how many doctrines comprise the so-called 'Doctrines of Grace'?" as 66 Books. I believe the Sovereign Grace of God is revealed from Genesis to Revelation, even in the Book of Esther which does not mention the name of God!

 

[thomas15]

Gems of Salvation not mentioned in TULIP

1. Union with Jesus Christ

2. Conversion

3. Saving Faith

4. Repentence

5. Pardon or Forgiveness

6. Justification {Previously Mentioned in Post #2}

7. Adoption

8. Sanctification

9. Assurance

10. Glorification, including the Resurrection of the Body

Anyone interested in these gems can find all discussed in The Bible by God and several discussed in God the Holy Spirit by Martyn Lloyd Jones or Manual of Theology by John Dagg and certainly elsewhere.

So then the Doctrines of Grace could be called The Ten Gems of Salvation. Question: do you have to believe in all of the Ten Gem Doctrines to be saved, do you have to fully understand the Ten Gem Doctrines to be be saved, can you be saved if you are a 9 pointer? Say your only 99% sure of Assurance, are you saved?

How many 5 point Calvinist do you think are 7 or 8 point DOGs? Is it possible for an Arminian Methodist to be a 10 point DOGer? If we are living in the Kingdom as the preterist say and not going to experience a bodly resurrection, are they still coverted by the Ten Gem Doctrines of Grace?

 

[percho]

I have a question for all and will say why I asked.

Are the letters / epistles of Paul written to show man what man must do to be saved or they written to show what God the Father through his Son Jesus did to being salvation to man?

I ask because I believe the latter and I believe the root of the problem of understanding is how early in the history of the church man began to try to figure out what he needed to do to be saved.

I believe man is ignorant in unbelief and God by his grace will open the eyes of whom he wills unto belief.

If the former is correct the first thing they had to decide was how they came about being able to believe ie have faith to be saved.

The rich young ruler wanted to know the same thing and in the end Jesus made the statement about the rich and the camel through the eye of a needle. The disciples were exceedingly astonished in saying who then can be saved? Answer With man it is impossible with God all things are possible.

I believe if man would fear God and attempt to keep his commands God will take care of the rest through the Christ.


To me that is the doctrine of grace.

BYW I fall short of the glory of God daily or close to daily. I pray for the grace of God.

 

[Thomas Helwys]

Since my thread was closed?? I will give you my response here!



It is my opinion that these Five Points of Calvinism, called TULIP, were never intended to present fully the Doctrines of the Sovereign Grace of God in Salvation, and they certainly do not. Rather they were simply a response to the Five Articles of the Remonstrants, followers of Jacobus Arminius.

Recall that the Doctrine that many credit with initiating the Reformation was Luther's assertion that Justification is by Faith Alone. There is no mention of the Doctrine of Justification by Faith Alone in the Five Points insofar as I have read. Yet what Baptist would deny the Grace of God in Justification?

Martyn Lloyd-Jones, regarding Luther’s dilemma [page 169, God The Holy Spirit] writes:

Although justification is an act of the Grace of God it is not at the expense of the righteousness of God as is demonstrated in the following Scripture. A righteous God cannot overlook sin for the wages of sin is death [Romans 6:23].

Romans 3:24-27, KJV
24. Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:
25. Whom God hath set forth [to be] a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;
26. To declare, [I say], at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.
27. Where [is] boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith.

The definitive truth in the above passage as it regards the justification of the believer is Verse 24: Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: and then Verse 26: To declare, [I say], at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus. We see that it is God who justifies and He justifies, yet remains just, only because of the righteousness of Jesus Christ. Faith is simply the instrument through which God imputes the righteousness of Jesus Christ to the believer.

We may say then that justification is a judicial or forensic act of God whereby the unjust sinner is declared righteous, not made righteous, in the sight of a Just and Holy God.

John Dagg [page 265, Manual of Theology] notes that justification is a higher blessing of grace than pardon or forgiveness. - From this I conclude that pardon frees from the penalty of sin, justification frees us from the guilt of sin.

I believe there is much more in the Doctrines of Grace than TULIP! Furthermore, I believe that TULIP has become a pejorative much as Calvinism has!

Your long post did not answer my question: Which petal(s) of the TULIP would DoG adherents not hold?

Would you like to try again?

 

[Thomas Helwys]

They are two descriptors of the same thing. Doctrines of Grace is simply another moniker for describing the doctrines summarized in TULIP.

Now, Some may use either term to differentiate between themselves and a full=fledged "Calvinist", or full-fledged "reformed". (one who also believes in infant baptism and presbyterian church government). It is my understanding that some Presby's would not consider a Tulip/DOG baptist to be fully reformed, or a "real calvinist.

But to repeat the main point, Tulip and DOG have no difference. (though some Free-willers object to the Calvinists use of "Doctrines of grace," saying that it assumes arminians don't believe in grace.)

That's what I thought, but I wanted a DoG person to answer.

 

[Thomas Helwys]

And or which Doctrine of Grace would a TULIP not hold?

You are asking a great question Thomas. I would also like to know the answer. I would like to know can an individual be saved by the shed blood of Jesus without embracing what is called the "Doctrines of Grace". If an individual doesn't embrace the Doctrines of Grace but are trusting in Christ are they really saved? Are those who espouse the Doctrines of Grace the only ones saved by grace?

Before the reformation of the 16th century, who taught the Doctrines of Grace? Are the Doctrines of Grace in the writings of the ECFs? Where are the Doctrines of Grace taught in the Old Testament?

The answer to these three questions: 1. No one 2. No 3. Nowhere

 

[Thomas Helwys]

I went back and read the end of the closed thread refered to in the OP, and I think I understand what OR is saying, which may be something like this:

The Entire Doctrine of Scripture, which in his view aligns with what has become known as calvinism/DoG/Tulip/Reformed soteriology... existed long before it was put forth in Tulip form, and Tulip doesn't fully explain that belief system, rather it expresses only the 5 points that were called into question by the arminians....Just as the Nicene creed does not explain everything the church beleived for the first few hundred years, but seeks to address what the thought were important points to make in light of current challenges.

Nevertheless...in current contexts, DOG nearly always refers to those who agree with the Tulip.

If that's what he's saying, at least it's consistent and makes sense, even if I don't agree with it.

 

[Thomas Helwys]

Gems of Salvation not mentioned in TULIP

1. Union with Jesus Christ

2. Conversion

3. Saving Faith

4. Repentence

5. Pardon or Forgiveness

6. Justification {Previously Mentioned in Post #2}

7. Adoption

8. Sanctification

9. Assurance

10. Glorification, including the Resurrection of the Body

Anyone interested in these gems can find all discussed in The Bible by God and several discussed in God the Holy Spirit by Martyn Lloyd Jones or Manual of Theology by John Dagg and certainly elsewhere.

Arminians and others believe in these ten things.

 

[saturneptune]

How about 66 Books!

Good answer, and right on point. The fact is, Doctrines of Grace are defined in Scripture. It is also a fact that those who oppose the Doctrines of Grace use the life of Calvin to attack the concept. Doctrines of Grace were around before Calvin was thought of.

We have had endless threads about the life and character of Calvin, and no can we could start another. The point is, God created Doctrines of Grace. We as humans are the ones that decided to attach Calvin and his life to the idea. Smooth move.

No one on this board is reponsible for the choices Calvin made, and it is ridiculous to use his life to condemn God's sovereignty. If you want to advance man choosing his own destiny, use Scripture. The times I mentioned Calvin's antics was not to attack DoG, it was to encourage others to seperate the two.

 

[saturneptune]

Arminians and others believe in these ten things.

Arminians are brothers and sisters in Christ. There are a lot of common beliefs. I think one person pointed out in another thread it all boils down to the timing of regeneration. On thing I have never seen however, it a Calvinist look into the details of the life of Arminius and use it to attack man's free will.

 

[Thomas Helwys]

Good answer, and right on point. The fact is, Doctrines of Grace are defined in Scripture. It is also a fact that those who oppose the Doctrines of Grace use the life of Calvin to attack the concept. Doctrines of Grace were around before Calvin was thought of.

We have had endless threads about the life and character of Calvin, and no can we could start another. The point is, God created Doctrines of Grace. We as humans are the ones that decided to attach Calvin and his life to the idea. Smooth move.

No one on this board is reponsible for the choices Calvin made, and it is ridiculous to use his life to condemn God's sovereignty. If you want to advance man choosing his own destiny, use Scripture. The times I mentioned Calvin's antics was not to attack DoG, it was to encourage others to seperate the two.

Whatever you want to call these doctrines, no one can explain why they were not taught in the early churches. There is not a hint of them in any writings until Augustine, and they are not full-blown until Calvin. I am suspicious of doctrines not held for the first 1500 years of the church, and I don't see that they have a scriptural basis. But I must point out that some of my closest friends disagree with me on this issue.

 

[12strings]

That's what I thought, but I wanted a DoG person to answer.

I did.