How About An Agreement ...

[OldRegular]

on what words and phrases not to use when dealing with members from the other theological party?

I'll start with some terms that I don't think aids in accurate communication. I am just speaking for myself --maybe some other Calvinists don't have a problem with the following:

Limited atonement --No, Particular Redemption, or Specific Atonement would be better.
Irresistable grace -- No, Effectual calling -please
Calvies -- No, Calvinists or Dortians or Holders of the Doctrines of Sovereign Grace.
Worship of John Calvin. I am sick and tired of that phrase. It is repulsive to the core. I admire and respect him, but please I have given my allegiance to Christ alone.

Please add some more Calvinists. And you non-Calvinists can add some terms as well. It's a two-way street.

I know I have used the term "blasphemous" a number of times when I thought it was deserved. That might be a hard one to avoid.

I don't think I have ever used the word, or a form of the word "idol" when dealing with a BB member who was of a different theological stripe. I want all of use to try and eliminate that word in discussions.

It's in the rules that we should not use the term "free-willies" and I think most of us have respected that.

Okay, I'd like some constructive feedback. Is that possible?

I found the following explanation of the acronym, TULIP, to be informative.

Many individuals (both Christian and non-Christian) connect John Calvin (or his followers) to the invention of the acronym TULIP.

Yet the truth is its origin should be placed on the followers of Jacob Arminius, who presented the five Remonstrances (which were constructed to oppose the teachings of Calvin’s followers and the Dutch church), at the Synod of Dort in 1618-1619 (roughly 8-9 years after Jacob Arminius died and 54 years after Calvin died).

Then, because of the challenge of the followers of Arminius, the followers of Calvin responded to their “five points”, which began the “germinating process” (pun intended) of the infamous TULIP.
http://www.clintarcher.com/calvinism-a-tulip-by-any-other-name/

There is no certainty regarding the origin of the acronym TULIP. However, the five points of Calvinism were discussed, as such, before the popular rise of this acronym, for example in R. L. Dabney's work, The Five Points of Calvinism, circa 1878. Dabney's five headings are:
1. total depravity,
2. effectual calling,
3. God's election,
4. particular redemption, and
5. perseverance of the saints.

From: http://www.theopedia.com/TULIP

Note: I took the liberty of listing the 5 points of Dabney!

I have always had a problem with the acronym TULIP because it is sometimes said to encompass all the Doctrine of Grace a claim which I reject. I also have a problem with some of the terms, particularly limited atonement and irresistible grace. I prefer particular redemption rather than limited atonement and regeneration rather than irresistible grace though some prefer effectual calling.

The term "irresistible grace" has been too often used to imply that God drags the sinner kicking and screaming to salvation. {Now I have seen some mothers do some dragging of young children to church membership though they were not "kicking and screaming"!} I prefer the term regeneration to effectual calling because I believe regeneration or the "new birth" makes the Gospel call an effectual call.

I also reject the name Calvinist simply because Calvin held to some doctrines, such as infant baptism, which I reject! The Doctrines of Sovereign Grace were not the invention of Calvin, they are the teaching of Scripture.

 

[Tom Butler]

Dr. Timothy George has coined the acronym ROSES.
R-Radical Depravity
O-Overcoming Grace
S-Sovereign Election
E-Eternal Life
S-Singular Redemption

Here's a good discussion from Tim Brister's website:
http://timmybrister.com/2008/10/steve-lemke-on-timothy-george-and-roses/

Timmy discusses Dr.George's ROSES, and comments on Steve Lemke's response.

 

[Rippon]

More Alternatives to T-U-L-I-P

Roger Nicole: G-O-S-P-E-L

Grace
Obligatory Grace
Sovereign Grace
Provision-making Grace
Effectual Grace
Lasting Grace

Greg Forster : W-U-P-S-I

Wholly Defiled
Unconditional Choice
Personal Salavation
Spernatural Transformation
In Fath, Perseverance

Dan Montgomery and Tim P. Jones : P-R-O-O-F

Planned Grace
Resurrecting Grace
Outrageous Grace
Overcoming Grace
Forever Grace
________________________________________________

Of course all of these authors spend some considerable time in fleshing-out these acronyms.

 

[RLBosley]

Roger Nicole: G-O-S-P-E-L

Grace
Obligatory Grace
Sovereign Grace
Provision-making Grace
Effectual Grace
Lasting Grace

Greg Forster : W-U-P-S-I

Wholly Defiled
Unconditional Choice
Personal Salavation
Spernatural Transformation
In Fath, Perseverance

Dan Montgomery and Tim P. Jones : P-R-O-O-F

Planned Grace
Resurrecting Grace
Outrageous Grace
Overcoming Grace
Forever Grace
________________________________________________

Of course all of these authors spend some considerable time in fleshing-out these acronyms.

For all the reformed men... bacon:

 

[Reformed]

For all the reformed men... bacon:

I howled the first time I saw that pic a few years ago. You cannot go wrong with bacon.

 

[steaver]

I have always had a problem with the acronym TULIP because it is sometimes said to encompass all the Doctrine of Grace a claim which I reject. I also have a problem with some of the terms, particularly limited atonement and irresistible grace. I prefer particular redemption rather than limited atonement and regeneration rather than irresistible grace though some prefer effectual calling.

The term "irresistible grace" has been too often used to imply that God drags the sinner kicking and screaming to salvation. {Now I have seen some mothers do some dragging of young children to church membership though they were not "kicking and screaming"!} I prefer the term regeneration to effectual calling because I believe regeneration or the "new birth" makes the Gospel call an effectual call.

I also reject the name Calvinist simply because Calvin held to some doctrines, such as infant baptism, which I reject!

Isn't this conversation just pie in the sky? Calvinism/TULIP is what it is. It's like these folks who say "Don't call it pro-abortion, it is pro-choice" and some how that then means one does not support murder.

The Doctrines of Sovereign Grace were not the invention of Calvin, they are the teaching of Scripture

I'll play along....let's ban the phrase "Doctrines of Grace" since both sides believe in the Doctrines of Grace outlined in the Scriptures but each side defines them and applies them differently. Calvinism has attempted to use this title to bolster their argument for TULIP. Afterall, it sounds really great doesn't it....Doctrines of Grace.....AMEN I say....of course when I say it I do not mean Calvin's doctrines of Grace.

 

[steaver]

I howled the first time I saw that pic a few years ago. You cannot go wrong with bacon.

Our SDA brothers and sisters would argue differently. They believe that bacon eating will cancel out any grace you think you might be getting towards heaven. :wavey:

 

[Yeshua1]

Our SDA brothers and sisters would argue differently. They believe that bacon eating will cancel out any grace you think you might be getting towards heaven. :wavey:

They hold to another/false gospel, so trhat would be the least of their worries!

 

[Rippon]

Isn't this conversation just pie in the sky? Calvinism/TULIP is what it is. It's like these folks who say "Don't call it pro-abortion, it is pro-choice" and some how that then means one does not support murder.

No, the acronym of TULIP is not the end-all. It was invented only 109 years ago. That is hardly a blip on the screen of Church History. Other brief formulations such as the ones mentioned so far may be better handles to convey in brief what is contained in the Canons of Dort. But there is nothing like actually reading the document yourself.

I use my 861 page The Voice of our Fathers :An Exposition of the Canons of Dordrecht by Homer C. Hoeksema for consultation. It is quite informative and edifying.

 

[InTheLight]

I'm sorry but Limited Atonement and Irresistible Grace are right on the money as descriptors of Reformed theology. The fact that Calvinists want to disown the acronyms of TULIP is just another indication of their obfuscation tactics.

So what aspect of the theology of Calvinistic salvation is resistible? Or put another way--is there an Ineffectual Calling? No, I think the term "irresistible grace" is spot on.

Bumping because I'm still looking for someone to answer my questions.

 

[Yeshua1]

Bumping because I'm still looking for someone to answer my questions.

As long as those holding against that concept are honest that in their theology, the will of man can and does overcome the will of God!

 

[RLBosley]

Bumping because I'm still looking for someone to answer my questions.

I'm sorry but Limited Atonement and Irresistible Grace are right on the money as descriptors of Reformed theology. The fact that Calvinists want to disown the acronyms of TULIP is just another indication of their obfuscation tactics.

Why assume the worst? Assuming that Calvinists want to obfuscate the teaching is unnecessary.

I do not particularly like the term Limited Atonement because it is too imprecise, too easy to misunderstand. That is why I prefer an alternative such as Particular Redemption. Of course TUPIP doesn't work very well...:laugh:

So what aspect of the theology of Calvinistic salvation is resistible? Or put another way--is there an Ineffectual Calling? No, I think the term "irresistible grace" is spot on.

The outward, proclamation of the gospel would be the "ineffectual" call as you put it, or the "general" call as traditionally defined. It can be and often is rejected.

There are also some moves of God's Spirit that are resistible, obviously:

Act 7:51 NASB - "You men who are stiff-necked and uncircumcised in heart and ears are always resisting the Holy Spirit; you are doing just as your fathers did.​

But the teaching of "Irresistible Grace" is not that ALL grace is irresistible at all times. Instead it is the teaching that at some point in the life of the elect, God's grace will overcome all resistance to the gospel. So I prefer something like "Overcoming" or "Overwhelming" grace.

Get it?

 

[Yeshua1]

Why assume the worst? Assuming that Calvinists want to obfuscate the teaching is unnecessary.

I do not particularly like the term Limited Atonement because it is too imprecise, too easy to misunderstand. That is why I prefer an alternative such as Particular Redemption. Of course TUPIP doesn't work very well...:laugh:


The outward, proclamation of the gospel would be the "ineffectual" call as you put it, or the "general" call as traditionally defined. It can be and often is rejected.

There are also some moves of God's Spirit that are resistible, obviously:

Act 7:51 NASB - "You men who are stiff-necked and uncircumcised in heart and ears are always resisting the Holy Spirit; you are doing just as your fathers did.​

But the teaching of "Irresistible Grace" is not that ALL grace is irresistible at all times. Instead it is the teaching that at some point in the life of the elect, God's grace will overcome all resistance to the gospel. So I prefer something like "Overcoming" or "Overwhelming" grace.

Get it?

Yes, as we all here resisted the Spirit until that time when he enabled us to see and understand and say" Oh, NOW I see the truth!"

 

[JonC]

Yes, as we all here resisted the Spirit until that time when he enabled us to see and understand and say" Oh, NOW I see the truth!"

Enabled us to see and understand or brought us to the point that we saw and understood?

 

[Rippon]

I do not particularly like the term Limited Atonement because it is too imprecise, too easy to misunderstand. That is why I prefer an alternative such as Particular Redemption. Of course TUPIP doesn't work very well...

That's what I was saying in the OP and elsewhere for some time. Roger Nicole wrote an excellent little book called Our Sovereign Saviour :The Essence of the Reformed Faith. Here are some snips regarding limited atonement.

"This, I think, is a complete misnomer... I cannot accept [it], for this is a total misrepresentation of what we mean to say.

...Therefore, the purpose of the atonement is restricted to the elect and is not spread to the universality of mankind.

...I, for one, am not happy to go under the banner of limited atonement...We ought to talk about 'definite atonement'. We ought to say that there was a definite purpose of Christ in offering himself. The substitution was not a blanket substitution. It was a substitution that was oriented specifically to the purpose for which he came into this world, namely, to save and redeem those whom the Father has given him." (pages 50,51)

But the teaching of "Irresistible Grace" is not that ALL grace is irresistible at all times. Instead it is the teaching that at some point in the life of the elect, God's grace will overcome all resistance to the gospel. So I prefer something like "Overcoming" or "Overwhelming" grace.

And Dr. Nicole offers some insight here as well. Again, I will submit some snips.

"The grace of God does not funtion against our wills but is rather, a grace which subdues the resistance of our wills. God the Holy Spirit is able to accomplish this.

...When there is resistance God comes in with his mighty grace and subdues that resistance. He makes no one come against his will, but he makes them willing to come. He does not do violence to the will of the creature, but he gently subdues and overcomes human resistance so that men will gladly respond to him and come in repentance and faith. We ought not to give the impression that somehow God forces himself upon his creatures so that the gospel is crammed down their throats, as it were...in the case of the apostle Paul...God overcame his resistance. The result is that Paul was brought willingly and happilily into the fold of the grace of God.

What we mean here is not 'irresistible' ...but 'effectual.' That is, the grace of God actually accomplishes what he intends it to accomplish." (pages 52,53)
________________________________________________________

And here is an extract in which he deals with the fifth point:

"The key to perseverance is the preservation by God of his saints, that is, the stability of his purpose and the fixity of his design. What is to be in view here is not so much the perseverance of those who are saved, but the perseverance of God with the sinners whom he has gloriously transformed and whom he assists to the end. We ought to talk about 'God's perseverance with his saints'. That is the thing that we need to emphasize." (p. 54)

 

[Rhetorician]

Timothy George's "ROSES"

on what words and phrases not to use when dealing with members from the other theological party?

I'll start with some terms that I don't think aids in accurate communication. I am just speaking for myself --maybe some other Calvinists don't have a problem with the following:

Limited atonement --No, Particular Redemption, or Specific Atonement would be better.
Irresistable grace -- No, Effectual calling -please
Calvies -- No, Calvinists or Dortians or Holders of the Doctrines of Sovereign Grace.
Worship of John Calvin. I am sick and tired of that phrase. It is repulsive to the core. I admire and respect him, but please I have given my allegiance to Christ alone.

Please add some more Calvinists. And you non-Calvinists can add some terms as well. It's a two-way street.

I know I have used the term "blasphemous" a number of times when I thought it was deserved. That might be a hard one to avoid.

I don't think I have ever used the word, or a form of the word "idol" when dealing with a BB member who was of a different theological stripe. I want all of use to try and eliminate that word in discussions.

It's in the rules that we should not use the term "free-willies" and I think most of us have respected that.

Okay, I'd like some constructive feedback. Is that possible?

Hello all:

I have not read through the thread, but has anyone suggested using Dr. Timothy George's ROSES instead of TULIP?

Just asking? :smilewinkgrin:

rd

 

[Tom Butler]

Hello all:

I have not read through the thread, but has anyone suggested using Dr. Timothy George's ROSES instead of TULIP?

Just asking? :smilewinkgrin:

rd

Here 'tis, borrowed from T. C. Robinson's blog, Faith and Culture.
http://nleaven.wordpress.com/2013/11/12/roses-alternative-to-tulip-by-timothy-george/

• Radical Depravity–Compared with total depravity, radical depravity agrees that every aspect of our being was damaged through the Fall and we can do nothing to save ourselves, but affirms that humans are not totally evil because we retain the image of God despite our fallenness.
• Overcoming Grace–Compared with irresistible grace, overcoming grace (or effectual calling) affirms that God accomplishes salvation, but differs in that rather than salvation being a mechanical and deterministic process, it allows for even sinful, obstinate humans to respond to God’s persistent wooing.
• Sovereign Election–In contrast to the double predestinarianism of unconditional election, God sovereignly elects those whom He foreknows will respond to Him.
• Eternal Life–The phrase “perseverance of the saints” might suggest that although we are saved by grace, we are kept by our good works. The phrase “Once saved, always saved”could suggest that we could claim Christ as Savior without making Him Lord of our lives.
• Singular Redemption–Finally, unlike limited atonement, singular redemption communicates that Jesus’ death was sufficient to save everyone but is efficient only for those who repent and believe.

Robinson says ROSES is not true Calvinism. Read his entire article at the link I listed above.

 

[Iconoclast]

Hello all:

I have not read through the thread, but has anyone suggested using Dr. Timothy George's ROSES instead of TULIP?

Just asking? :smilewinkgrin:

rd

It is not at all Calvinistic and is to be rejected as unscriptural.

 

[Reformed]

TULIP may not translate perfectly into the modern vernacular, but it is not inaccurate. No matter how you term it, the efficacy of the Atonement is limited to the Elect. I appreciate definite and particular atonement as terms, but they wind up at the same place as Limited Atonement.

 

[JonC]

TULIP may not translate perfectly into the modern vernacular, but it is not inaccurate. No matter how you term it, the efficacy of the Atonement is limited to the Elect. I appreciate definite and particular atonement as terms, but they wind up at the same place as Limited Atonement.

To borrow from Isaac Watts regarding the limited atonement conflict:

“When the Remonstrants assert that Christ died for all mankind merely to purchase conditional salvation for them; and when those who profess to be the strictest Calvinists assert that Christ died only to procure absolute and effectual salvation for the elect; it is not because the whole Scripture asserts the particular sentiments of either of those sects with an exclusion of the other. But the reason of these different assertions of men is this, that the holy writers in different texts pursuing different subjects, and speaking to different persons, sometimes seem to favor each of these two options; and men, being at a loss to reconcile them by any medium, run into different extremes, and entirely follow one of these tracks of thought and neglect the other.”

My view is that we cannot take God’s redemptive plan, cut it up in to small sections, place those small sections into little boxes, hold up one of those boxes alone and say “this is salvation in its entirety.” The reason I prefer “particular redemption” over “limited atonement” is that the cross was not God’s only instrument in His plan of redemption. Without the cross, there is no salvation, and without faith there is no salvation.