Calvinism, TULIP, and reverse engineering

[Dave...]

Is this point legitimate? Does Tulip change the way people approach Scripture?

From A.I.

The reverse engineering argument against TULIP

• The starting point is the outcome, not the text: Critics argue that rather than beginning with the biblical text to form a theology, the TULIP framework starts with a perceived outcome—that not everyone is saved—and then interprets scripture to justify the five points.
• 
  
• The system is prioritized over the biblical context: From this perspective, passages are selected and interpreted to fit into the TULIP acronym, sometimes ignoring surrounding context or the author's original intent. The system becomes the primary lens for understanding the Gospel, rather than the other way around.
• 
  
• Focus on God's sovereignty over love: Another criticism is that the focus on God's absolute sovereignty, particularly in unconditional election, weakens the understanding of God's love for all people, which many see as a necessary component of free will.
• 
  
• Logical deduction vs. biblical induction: The reverse engineering argument suggests that TULIP is a logical deduction from certain premises rather than an inductive conclusion drawn from the entirety of biblical scripture. The argument is that while the deductions may be logically sound within the system, they don't necessarily reflect the full picture presented in the Bible.

The Calvinist perspective

From the perspective of Calvinists and Reformed theologians, TULIP is not reverse engineering but a coherent and faithful summary of what the Bible teaches about salvation.

• A response to Arminianism: The five points were formulated by the Synod of Dort (1618–1619) as a direct response to the five points of the Remonstrance, a document outlining Arminian theology. The TULIP acronym itself is a much later invention (20th century), but the theological content arose from a specific theological debate.
• 
  
• Derived from Scripture: Adherents believe that each point is thoroughly rooted in Scripture, especially passages that emphasize God's sovereignty and role in salvation. From this viewpoint, the Bible's teaching on human sinfulness (total depravity) and God's initiative in election and grace naturally leads to the conclusions summarized by TULIP.
• 
  
• Defending against heresy: Many Calvinists view their theology not as a man-made construct but as a defense of scriptural truth against what they consider to be heretical teachings.
• 
  
• Clarifying the Gospel: Some Calvinists see the TULIP framework as a valuable teaching tool that clarifies the Gospel's message by focusing on God's complete power and initiative in redemption.

Conclusion

Whether TULIP is "reverse engineering" ultimately depends on one's theological starting point. The criticism views it as prioritizing a logical system over a holistic biblical account, while the defense views it as a biblically faithful and logical summary of the doctrines of grace.

 

[JonC]

It does change the way one approaches Scripture.

First, we have to remember that Calvin was coming out of a RCC background (with an education not in theology but a secular judicial philosophy of his time). This influenced Calvin's view, but it also influenced how Calvinists approach Scripture.

Calvinists approach Scripture from the RCC position (Aquinas' theory) that redemotion is first and foremost God's righteousness manifested through the law. It is a judicial issue. As such it follows a16th century judicial philosophy that considers the role of a judge as maintaining a type of judicial ledger. A crime is a debt that the judge must collect in order for justice to be done. Justice is a demand placed on the judge. This forms the Calvinistic understanding of the "problem of redemption".

Calvin reformed RCC doctrine by replacing satisfactory substitution with penal substitution. This changes how Calvinists view not only redemption but how they understand the Old Testament (especially the Levitical roles and the sacrifice system).

Second, Beza built the system of Calvinism using Calvin's writings. It was Beza who put salvation under the category of divine sovereignty. Calvinism views divine sovereignty as the sovereignty of the Father and the overriding factor to all doctrine. Over time divine decree has replaced divine sovereignty.

All of Calvinism rises or falls on these philosophies. It is the lens through which the Calvinist views and understands Scripture. Any passage that challenges the lens is discarded as tge presupposed theories are beyond question. These passages are typically by explanning away or words in the Bible are assigned new meanings.

The philosophy is never questioned or changed. Cslvinism is objective but S rioture is subjective (subject to Calvinism) lest the Cslvinistic lens crack.

 

[Paleouss]

Is this point legitimate? Does Tulip change the way people approach Scripture?

Greetings to you Dave. What a great day God has made!

I would first like to thank my Calvinist brothers (all those that lean Calvinist) for their defense of God's sovereignty. All praise and glory to God. I do enjoy reading those of Calvinist mind, even though I am not a Calvinist proper myself, like John Calvin himself and Jonathan Edwards.

After those thanks being given, Calvinism like any theology (a) sometimes, many times, goes to far, and (b) often defends the 'system' over the clear presence of oppositional groupings of verses. Systematic Theology has become the stumbling block of many in modern times (the need to give every answer and connect every dot). I do not condemn this need to find all the answers. I myself am of a mind to have a great desire for the same. However, sometimes God simply decides not to reveal answers to us. In those cases, one must just have faith that two seemingly contradictory things might be true at the same time (if the Bible seems to indicate such). There is nothing wrong with not understanding.

It seems to me that the concepts of Calvinism, as expressed by John Calvin himself, have in more modern times shifted toward Hyper Calvinism. For example, the concept of Total depravity that every person in the Reformed Trajectory believed has drifted into some kind of expression of Utter Depravity. And in like manner down the TULIP line.

Of course I am of the mind anyway that no one has it all correct. Martin Luther, John Calvin, John Wesley...they all were great godly men in my estimation. But non of them had it all right. If none of them had it all right then what theology do I have wrong?

When I was 16 I found that God had made a promise to me, and all of us, when I stumbled upon Proverbs 2. I have lived by this promise ever since.

(Pro 2:2-5 NKJV) 2 So that you incline your ear to wisdom, [And] apply your heart to understanding; 3 Yes, if you cry out for discernment, [And] lift up your voice for understanding, 4 If you seek her as silver, And search for her as [for] hidden treasures; 5 Then you will understand the fear of the LORD, And find the knowledge of God.

Never stop seeking God's truth, He is faithful.

 

[Zaatar71]

The teaching of the bible is what is labeled Calvinism. The teaching is all through the bible. Who ever read it and understands it is secondary. The label is a summary of the teaching, not the other way around

 

[Dave...]

@JonC , @Paleouss , @Zaatar71

I always wondered what the appeal of Calvinism was to the new Christian, as many new Christians are now turning to it and it's becoming the popular model of understanding Scripture. For me it was a combination of a hunger for understanding Scripture, and a foundation to understand from to help put things in order. Calvinism, or TULIP provided that. And on the surface, it appeared to have quite a bit of Scripture to support it. What solidified me to Calvinism was my backlash against the humanism that was rampant in the modern Christian churches, like Pentecostalism and Charismatics. Calvinism, which emphasized God's sovereignty was the antithesis to that humanism.

Funny, I still remember Alistair Begg, in his series "A Christian Manifesto", which I purchased on cassette tape as a new Christian, advising us to never enslave ourselves to a theological camp. To always be willing to think independently and always hold to Scripture. Good advise for a young Christian to hear.

I always had questions about Calvinism, I just brushed them aside as 'I'll get it when God shows me'. But the questions never went away. The clear Scripture that opposed the Calvinist understanding of Scripture began to pile up and weigh heavier. What probably bothered me the most was the missing historical context in Calvinism's interpretation of Scripture. That is not just a Calvinist problem, but applies to Calvinism today as well. Identifying that historical context and the differences in the way God deals with people from the OT to the NT should not be taken lightly. Calvinism turns a blind eye to that change in historical context and applies all Scripture to every dispensation as if the context simply doesn't matter. At some point in time the seasoned Calvinist sees that context, but begins to deliberately ignore it, and as a result, begins to interpret Scripture by the system rather than the other ways around.

Lets face it, the deeper truths in Scripture are hidden to the natural man because he cannot see context. We should not take any context lightly. Historical context is necessary to interpret Scripture accurately from the OT to the NT.

Anyways, I just recently ran into the phrase 'reverse engineering' and found it interesting that there truly is nothing new under the sun. This idea that in Calvinism the system of TULIP interprets Scripture has been discussed in the past. I though that it might be worth digging into.

 

[JonC]

@JonC , @Paleouss , @Zaatar71

I always wondered what the appeal of Calvinism was to the new Christian, as many new Christians are now turning to it and it's becoming the popular model of understanding Scripture. For me it was a combination of a hunger for understanding Scripture, and a foundation to understand from to help put things in order. Calvinism, or TULIP provided that. And on the surface, it appeared to have quite a bit of Scripture to support it. What solidified me to Calvinism was my backlash against the humanism that was rampant in the modern Christian churches, like Pentecostalism and Charismatics. Calvinism, which emphasized God's sovereignty was the antithesis to that humanism.

Funny, I still remember Alistair Begg, in his series "A Christian Manifesto", which I purchased on cassette tape as a new Christian, advising us to never enslave ourselves to a theological camp. To always be willing to think independently and always hold to Scripture. Good advise for a young Christian to hear.

I always had questions about Calvinism, I just brushed them aside as 'I'll get it when God shows me'. But the questions never went away. The clear Scripture that opposed the Calvinist understanding of Scripture began to pile up and weigh heavier. What probably bothered me the most was the missing historical context in Calvinism's interpretation of Scripture. That is not just a Calvinist problem, but applies to Calvinism today as well. Identifying that historical context and the differences in the way God deals with people from the OT to the NT should not be taken lightly. Calvinism turns a blind eye to that change in historical context and applies all Scripture to every dispensation as if the context simply doesn't matter. At some point in time the seasoned Calvinist sees that context, but begins to deliberately ignore it, and as a result, begins to interpret Scripture by the system rather than the other ways around.

Lets face it, the deeper truths in Scripture are hidden to the natural man because he cannot see context. We should not take any context lightly. Historical context is necessary to interpret Scripture accurately from the OT to the NT.

Anyways, I just recently ran into the phrase 'reverse engineering' and found it interesting that there truly is nothing new under the sun. This idea that in Calvinism the system of TULIP interprets Scripture has been discussed in the past. I though that it might be worth digging into.

Calvinism has an appeal for several reasons.

For one, sometimes people hear preachers they like and assume "it's good enough for them".
It is also an "easy-believism", so some find it attractive because it makes no actual demand on the believer.

But I think some may be drawn to it because it is a very well worked out philosophy. It addresses where other theologies of a Calvinistic trajectory fails (specifically issues concerning sovereignty as Calvinism defines the word).

In the US and UK most Protestants are Calvinist or hold a theology that is derived from Calvinism. This is due to the influence of the Presbyterian church in the US. When you adopt only part of Calvinism you end up with inconsistencies in your doctrine.

Calvinism is a complete stand-alone philosophy. At its core it is independent of Scrioture. The components of its philosophy interlocking and builds on one another. So if one component is missing or fails the entire philosophy collapses.

Say, for example, you attend a non-Calvinistic church that holds the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonemen and you believe that theory. The Theory is Calvinistic (it was developed in the 16th century to correct RCC error). If you are consistent then you will realize that Limited Atonement is the logical conclusion (Christ is punished for the sins of sinners, but this can't be for the sins of those who "remain in their sins").

BUT, at the sane time there has been a movement within Calvinistic churches to "reform the Reformed" and bring Calvinism closer to the Bible. A younger generation has realized that what they are told the Bible teaches is often at odds with what the Bible actually states. I do not hold out much hope that the end result will be much better than Calvinism as they are just trying to re-form a philosophy. But it is great to see that at least some within that sect is trying to seek out God's Word.


It is sad, but I also see many being drawn to Calvinism (and other philosophies) because they find God's Word itself too shallow. Scripture often dies not meet the demands of worldly "wisdom". They view the spiritual things of Scripture not to be "what is written" but philosophical "truths" that are taught by the Bible. Rather than the Spirit guiding the believer, illuminating and applying God's Word they view the role of the Spirit as teaching beyond the words of God. The actual words of God are foolishness to them, they are unimportant. What is important is what leaders in the sect tell them to believe, what they ate told Scripture "when properly understood" "really teaches".