• Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Calvinism, TULIP, and reverse engineering

Dave...

Active Member
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

Moderator
Moderator
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

Active Member
Site Supporter
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.
 

Dave...

Active Member
@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.
 
Last edited:

JonC

Moderator
Moderator
@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".
 

Zaatar71

Well-Known Member
@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.
Hello Dave, The appeal among believers is simply it is the truth of God. It is not easy to believe, in fact many teachings go against the thoughts and intents of the heart of fallen mankind.
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.
This has some merit, but can be abused also. This is a large discussion by itself.
I always had questions about Calvinism, I just brushed them aside as 'I'll get it when God shows me'.
Questions about Calvinism when examined are how does scripture bring the Whole man to The whole Christ.
But the questions never went away.
yes, because truth does not go away, but exists alongside error. The wheat and tares grow together until the harvest.
The clear Scripture that opposed the Calvinist understanding of Scripture began to pile up and weigh heavier.
If you believe this is so, by all means ask those questions, and present those verses to an actual Calvinist. What I mean is, there are many who have failed to understand the teaching, and react to caricatures ,and strawmen. This is a common pet peeve of Calvinists, in that they come across this all the time. Dave, would you look to send a friend or family member who was seeking after what is a Christian, to a person who says, oh yeah, I used to be a Christian, but I am no longer a Christian now. I have found out something better. I have found out something no other Christian knows about! Listen to me , instead of other Christians? Would you take your car or computer for repairs, to someone who has no idea how to fix it?
What probably bothered me the most was the missing historical context in Calvinism's interpretation of Scripture.
Perhaps you have not found the correct information to help you in your search. Listening to detractors, will not help with that! look at what gets posted on this message board, and others. There is a sharp divide.
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.
Agreed. It can be a problem, or it might not be a problem. That would be determined on a case-to-case basis
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.
Most Calvinists are Covenant theologians so they view the 66 books as united, not fragmented. So, it is not a blind eye, but rather they do not divide what God has joined together, like dispensational thought does,
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.
I have found the complete opposite
Lets face it, the deeper truths in Scripture are hidden to the natural man
David, all scriptural truth is hidden to the natural man 1cor2;14, not just the "deeper truths" All truth is hidden from them.
because he cannot see context.
No, it is because he does not have a new heart, by new birth. Without the indwelling Holy Spirit, natural man is blinded by, the world, the flesh, the devil
We should not take any context lightly. Historical context is necessary to interpret Scripture accurately from the OT to the NT.
okay
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.
People who oppose truth have to come up with a reason or justification for why they do not believe, truth is truth.
Reverse engineering is just such an idea.
 

Dave...

Active Member
If you believe this is so, by all means ask those questions, and present those verses to an actual Calvinist. What I mean is, there are many who have failed to understand the teaching, and react to caricatures ,and strawmen. This is a common pet peeve of Calvinists, in that they come across this all the time. Dave, would you look to send a friend or family member who was seeking after what is a Christian, to a person who says, oh yeah, I used to be a Christian, but I am no longer a Christian now. I have found out something better. I have found out something no other Christian knows about! Listen to me , instead of other Christians? Would you take your car or computer for repairs, to someone who has no idea how to fix it?
Hey Z

I have. You'll see a sampling below of some threads I started.

Most Calvinists are Covenant theologians so they view the 66 books as united, not fragmented. So, it is not a blind eye, but rather they do not divide what God has joined together, like dispensational thought does,

Would you then agree that 'Covenant' and 'Testament' basically means the same thing? The Old Covenant and the New Covenant are distinct from each other in many ways, as is not only evidenced by the writer of the book of Hebrews, but each is also distinct from the other in the relationship between the Holy Spirit and man from the Old to the New Covenant.

Hebrews outline by Kenneth Wuest.

Hades/Sheol, and it's absence from reformed theology.

David, all scriptural truth is hidden to the natural man 1cor2;14, not just the "deeper truths" All truth is hidden from them.

In the New Covenant, God draws all people to Himself (John 12:32). That would be nonsense if all people were unable to understand the Gospel message. Notice He says the same thing in (John 3:13-15), that the Son of man must first be lifted up before anyone could be indwelt with the Holy Spirit and born again and see those deeper truths (John 7:38-39). The deeper truths that nobody could understand until they were indwelt with the Holy Spirit and were born again (John 16:12-14). With the birth of the Church, the first placed into Christ and born again with the first indwelling of the Holy Spirit, and all OT believers living added, now had the Seed/Light within them (indwelling) to evangelize the world (John 12:35-36) (1 Corinthians 6:19-20). Compare 1 Corinthians 2:14 with John 7:38-39. In John 7:38-39, they believed before they had the indwelling and before they were born again, and still did not yet understand the deeper truths of Scripture. As it was for all OT believers. Did you ever notice the difference of the Apostles before and after Pentecost? That's because after Pentecost with the indwelling of the Holy Spirit they were born again and then could understand those deeper truths.

What does man need to be blinded if he already cannot see? I posed the question and you were the first to respond, but you never really answered.

God hardens hearts that He claims would otherwise believe. Is this total depravity?

No, it is because he does not have a new heart, by new birth. Without the indwelling Holy Spirit, natural man is blinded by, the world, the flesh, the devil

If He is indwelt with the Holy Spirit, he has a new heart, and has been born again, then he has no need for faith, he's is already complete in Christ (Romans 8:9-10). The problem for the Calvinist is that the indwelling is the result of the initial faith (Galatians 3:2-3, Romans 5:2), and only the cause of the ongoing faith (Hebrews 12:2), or the life. By grace through faith we are saved (Ephesians 2:8).

What does the Bible teach us about the spiritual mechanics of being born again? (Some very important context for the Calvinist)

In the context if the Bible, is the word 'believe' the same as "faith'?

Some proof texts confronted.

John 1:12-13 revisited.

1 John 5:1 revisited.

People who oppose truth have to come up with a reason or justification for why they do not believe, truth is truth.
Reverse engineering is just such an idea.

Calvinism strains out a gnat by adhering to the theological system TULIP, and swallows a camel by ignoring the context of each of the proof texts that make up that system. A failure to recognize the historical context will make it impossible to understand the Gospels and the transition taking place.
 

Zaatar71

Well-Known Member
Hey Z

I have. You'll see a sampling below of some threads I started.



Would you then agree that 'Covenant' and 'Testament' basically means the same thing? The Old Covenant and the New Covenant are distinct from each other in many ways, as is not only evidenced by the writer of the book of Hebrews, but each is also distinct from the other in the relationship between the Holy Spirit and man from the Old to the New Covenant.

Hebrews outline by Kenneth Wuest.

Hades/Sheol, and it's absence from reformed theology.



In the New Covenant, God draws all people to Himself (John 12:32). That would be nonsense if all people were unable to understand the Gospel message. Notice He says the same thing in (John 3:13-15), that the Son of man must first be lifted up before anyone could be indwelt with the Holy Spirit and born again and see those deeper truths (John 7:38-39). The deeper truths that nobody could understand until they were indwelt with the Holy Spirit and were born again (John 16:12-14). With the birth of the Church, the first placed into Christ and born again with the first indwelling of the Holy Spirit, and all OT believers living added, now had the Seed/Light within them (indwelling) to evangelize the world (John 12:35-36) (1 Corinthians 6:19-20). Compare 1 Corinthians 2:14 with John 7:38-39. In John 7:38-39, they believed before they had the indwelling and before they were born again, and still did not yet understand the deeper truths of Scripture. As it was for all OT believers. Did you ever notice the difference of the Apostles before and after Pentecost? That's because after Pentecost with the indwelling of the Holy Spirit they were born again and then could understand those deeper truths.

What does man need to be blinded if he already cannot see? I posed the question and you were the first to respond, but you never really answered.

God hardens hearts that He claims would otherwise believe. Is this total depravity?



If He is indwelt with the Holy Spirit, he has a new heart, and has been born again, then he has no need for faith, he's is already complete in Christ (Romans 8:9-10). The problem for the Calvinist is that the indwelling is the result of the initial faith (Galatians 3:2-3, Romans 5:2), and only the cause of the ongoing faith (Hebrews 12:2), or the life. By grace through faith we are saved (Ephesians 2:8).

What does the Bible teach us about the spiritual mechanics of being born again? (Some very important context for the Calvinist)

In the context if the Bible, is the word 'believe' the same as "faith'?

Some proof texts confronted.

John 1:12-13 revisited.

1 John 5:1 revisited.



Calvinism strains out a gnat by adhering to the theological system TULIP, and swallows a camel by ignoring the context of each of the proof texts that make up that system. A failure to recognize the historical context will make it impossible to understand the Gospels and the transition taking place.
Dave, Thanks for posting. I am doing four different things right now, but I would like to go over what you have posted, line by line.
Short response is, I like how you are looking things over. I like Weust on somethings, not so much on others, but I like the fact that you are more than willing to search it out! We are going to agree on many things, but where we will sharpen each other is offering up areas where we differ to be able to interact on them. Once I complete half of my tasks, I will work through what you have offered carefully. I do want to take time with it, being you took the time to offer it!, later on!
 

JonC

Moderator
Moderator
@DaveXR650 ,

Both Dispensationalism (developed in a detailed form by Isaac Watts, later formulated by Darby) and Covenant Theology (developed in a basic form by Zwingli and Oecolampadius) originated within Calvinism as ways of viewing "God's economy".

Covenant Theology is a framework some use to understand the Bible. There are several covenants within this scheme (most are not biblical per se but are determined to be necessary or implied).

The "Covenant of Redemption" is a supposed covenant between the Father and Son before creation.
The "Covenant of Works" is a supposed covenant God made with Adam.
The "Covenant of Grace" is a supposed covenant that began after the Fall that the elect will be saved through faith (it is the same through the OT and NT).

What you are speaking of are covenants established in the Bible (Abrahamic Covenant, Old or Mosaic Covenant, and the New Covenant).

These (the covenants in the Bible) would fall under their "Covenant of Grace".
 

Brightfame52

Well-Known Member
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.
Yes it is the Gospel of God's Grace clarified. Acts 20:24-27

24 But none of these things move me, neither count I my life dear unto myself, so that I might finish my course with joy, and the ministry, which I have received of the Lord Jesus, to testify the gospel of the grace of God.

25 And now, behold, I know that ye all, among whom I have gone preaching the kingdom of God, shall see my face no more.

26 Wherefore I take you to record this day, that I am pure from the blood of all men.

27 For I have not shunned to declare unto you all the counsel of God.
 

atpollard

Well-Known Member
I always wondered what the appeal of Calvinism was to the new Christian
Calvinism has an appeal for several reasons.
I find these discussions fascinating because the innate assumption that people experienced “Calvinism” first and learned of God through that lens is so antithetical to my personal experience.

I came to Christianity from a strong ATHEIST background, no mere “unsure” or “doubt” but from a position of absolute certainty in the NON-EXISTANCE of “god”. When I was 8 years old, my friend was raped by his mother’s boyfriend and I was confronted head on with “the question of evil”. The inescapable conclusion was “god was aware of what was happening, or god is not omniscient; god was able to prevent it, or god is not omnipotent; god was there when it happened, or god is not omnipresent“ therefore, option one (god is not omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent = god does not exist) or option two (god knew and did not care, could have done something and chose not to, was there and did nothing about it = god is evil). “God does not exist“ seemed far more statistically likely than an “evil god”.

By my late teens, I was a member of a gang, an arsonist, a drug smuggler … I had been stabbed, shot someone and set enemies on fire. I only mention this to make 100% clear that “seeking God” was the last thing on my mind when God intervened and “made me an offer that I could not refuse” … God did not ASK, God TOLD me that effective immediately, I belonged to Him. A thoroughly monergistic experience.

I selected the nearest church at random: Church of God of Anderson Indiana (Wesleyan Holiness) and read scripture in an attempt to reconcile my empirical experience with the Wesleyan synergistic theology that I was being taught. I came up with 4 core truths from life and the Bible:

1. People are, at their core, no damn good.
2. Whatever the reason God chooses to save us, it sure is NOT because we deserve it.
3. God does not TRY, God just DOES.
4. God finishes what God starts.

Imagine my surprise, a decade later, when I discovered that there was this old argument between something called Arminianism and something called Calvinism and that these 5 points called TULIP seemed to be saying the same conclusions that I had come to reading the Bible and studying under the Church of God’s Wesleyan teachings.

[I still think that “Who Jesus Died For” - ATONEMENT - feels like people telling God His business]
 

JonC

Moderator
Moderator
I find these discussions fascinating because the innate assumption that people experienced “Calvinism” first and learned of God through that lens is so antithetical to my personal experience.

I came to Christianity from a strong ATHEIST background, no mere “unsure” or “doubt” but from a position of absolute certainty in the NON-EXISTANCE of “god”. When I was 8 years old, my friend was raped by his mother’s boyfriend and I was confronted head on with “the question of evil”. The inescapable conclusion was “god was aware of what was happening, or god is not omniscient; god was able to prevent it, or god is not omnipotent; god was there when it happened, or god is not omnipresent“ therefore, option one (god is not omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent = god does not exist) or option two (god knew and did not care, could have done something and chose not to, was there and did nothing about it = god is evil). “God does not exist“ seemed far more statistically likely than an “evil god”.

By my late teens, I was a member of a gang, an arsonist, a drug smuggler … I had been stabbed, shot someone and set enemies on fire. I only mention this to make 100% clear that “seeking God” was the last thing on my mind when God intervened and “made me an offer that I could not refuse” … God did not ASK, God TOLD me that effective immediately, I belonged to Him. A thoroughly monergistic experience.

I selected the nearest church at random: Church of God of Anderson Indiana (Wesleyan Holiness) and read scripture in an attempt to reconcile my empirical experience with the Wesleyan synergistic theology that I was being taught. I came up with 4 core truths from life and the Bible:

1. People are, at their core, no damn good.
2. Whatever the reason God chooses to save us, it sure is NOT because we deserve it.
3. God does not TRY, God just DOES.
4. God finishes what God starts.

Imagine my surprise, a decade later, when I discovered that there was this old argument between something called Arminianism and something called Calvinism and that these 5 points called TULIP seemed to be saying the same conclusions that I had come to reading the Bible and studying under the Church of God’s Wesleyan teachings.

[I still think that “Who Jesus Died For” - ATONEMENT - feels like people telling God His business]
Thank you for the feedback. Your experience is interesting.

Many of the conclusions are the same (sometimes for different reasons). Jonathan Edward's pointed this out regarding predestination. BUT Arminianism is a form of Calvinism (at one time it was accepted as orthodox Calvinism, although extreme. At the time of James Arminius' death he was an orthodox Calvinist).

I don't think that people come to Calvinism first, but I really do not know.

My experience is being raised in a SBC congregation that was neither Calvinistic or free-will. But I grew up believing Calvin's theory of Atonement. I cannot recall questioning doctrines that could be at odds with one another. As I matured I became concerned that we were taught what to believe but not why. Those who disagreed with our doctrine believed their doctrine just as we believed ours. So I studied theology as an undergrad.

I assumed that the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement was correct, and by the time I started grad school I realized that if it was true then it had certain implications (like limited atonement). I was also exploring the role of God in salvation. This is what led me to become a Calvinist. Calvininism provided a consistency that I found lacking in my church.

One morning I awoke - out of the blue - convicted that my sermon the day before strayed from God's Word. I spent several weeks reading passages supporting the Calvinistic Atonement that Calvinism and Arminianism share only to discover none of it was actually in the biblical text. I knew how these theologies developed because this was my study in seminary and I had read the debates, developments, and defenses provided at the time.

For me, the reason I had to abandon Calvinism and reject Arminianism was that I held a conflicting belief.

I believed (and still do) that essential and foundational doctrines (doctrines central to our faith, upon which other doctrines are built or supported) are revealed to us in God's Word (in the biblical text itself, as objective, one can highlight the words in their Bibles). This conflicted with Calvin's atonement theory.

So I was drawn to Calvinism because of inconsistencies in non-Calvinistic church doctrine, but God drew me out of Calvinism because of its biblical inaccuracies (differences, redefining words, adding to "what is written").

I realized that Calvinism dies not "pass the test" I believe we should apply to doctrine. It cannot pass the standard of testing against the biblical text because it is a systematic theology (which includes secular philosophy by definition) and is not "what is written". It can only pass the test of the Calvinist comparing what he thinks the Bible teaches against what he thinks is taught by the Bible. It is extraordinary subjective.

I have come to believe that traditional Christisnity was correct after all, that we are not to lean on our understanding of the Bible but on every word that comes from God. Clarity comes not by theorizing about what the Bible teaches but by accepting God's words as exactly the thing the Bible teaches.

Christians have differences in interpretation. But I believe these should be differences in interpreting "what is written". Christians who differ here can highlight their beluefs in God's Word and must walk away agreeing to disagree with one another.

Calvinists can only insist that the men they believe are the teachers God gave Christianity to explain what the Bible really means. But so can Arminianists, Methodists, SDAs, Jehivah Witnesses, etc. The means is the same - trusting the understsnding of men.
 
Last edited:
Top