"Calvinism"

alexanderjames

alexanderjames

Puritan Board Sophomore
Why is "Calvinism" often popularly defined as the 5 'TULIP' points?

(one example - https://www.gotquestions.org/calvinism.html)

This portrayal seems to me like an overly reductionist and actually misleading view of what historic "Calvinism" is, given John Calvin didn't teach 5 points of soteriology.
Am I the only person this bothers?

(And this isn't to mention related irksome notions like the idea that a Calvinistic view of predestination is the same as being reformed!)
 
It is reductionist and completely misleading. Despite it being a terrible acronym, TULIP is easy to remember and communicate. Moreover, predestination can be a no-holds barred, existential issue in a way that covenant nourishment is not.
 
RamistThomist said:
It is reductionist and completely misleading. Despite it being a terrible acronym, TULIP is easy to remember and communicate. Moreover, predestination can be a no-holds barred, existential issue in a way that covenant nourishment is not.
Click to expand...
Maybe we should make a new initialism focusing on covenant nourishment...
 
pgwolv said:
Maybe we should make a new initialism focusing on covenant nourishment...
Click to expand...

That would bring up the old debates on whether a particular understanding of Covenant theology is necessary to call oneself Reformed. It's also not as sexy as a big conference on the "Radicalness of Grace," or whatever a certain parachurch ministry is up to these days.
 
Language evolves that way. In most cases, the term "Calvinism" has come to mean the doctrines of grace. It can be a useful shorthand, provided the reader understands what is meant. It does have the unhappy effect of leading some readers who don't know much about Calvin himself to think that's all he taught,
or to think that if they have doubts about the doctrines of grace they should dislike anything to do with Calvin.

So, yes, the term has its shortcomings. But it's engrained in our theological language by now. It's best for a writer simply to be aware of its common usage and the shortcomings that come with this, and explain further when helpful. A campaign to eradicate the common usage is not likely to have much effect.
 
Along the same lines, got questions, for all it’s good, made a mental divide for me between election and the rest of soteriology. This had some pretty negative effects.

This seems to be one of the dangers of TULIP: it’s not a complete picture of soteriology. For one, it’s says little about the atonement itself.
 
It's interesting beceause I was driving up to a meeting yesterday and thinking about how many people individualize or personalize theology or even the idea that they have a certain Confession even though they attend a Church with a completely different one.

I think that what is Reformed is determined by a Church that is Reformed and the Confessional document that gives shape to their branch of the Church Catholic. While it is interesting that individuals hold to certain ideas, I think Churches that have a stable Confession that is historically aligned with Reformational theological distinctives are those that best represent the Reformed faith.

It's not enough, for instance, to be a Mark Driscoll and adopt a notion of God's Sovereignty that "relieves"people that someone is teaching against the standard ideas of free will. What good is it to have a "Church" or a "network" that is held together by chewing gum and wire in terms of a "build it as ayou go" theology only to have it fly apart as soon as the waves crash against it?

What will be left of the "New Calvinism" a generation from now? Will the children's children of people who were excited about Calvinism in the 2000's look anything like what their parents were confessing when they were excited about certain aspects of TULIP and couldn't put much else together.

I can only speak for my Presbyterian corner of the Church Catholic but I'm going to be speaking to a licentiate candidate within an hour and help him tighten up his understanding of the Covenant of Grace. Why? Because that's at the center of what makes Reformed theology distinctive and unless one understands our conception of the Mediator and His threefold office and how every evangelical grace flows from him then TULIP is hanging in mid-air as if you could conceive of any of it without thinking of these ideas and how they relate.
 
MyCrows said:
I'm kinda feeling like I'm the only one who loves the fairest flower in God's garden...

:scratch:
Click to expand...
I'm with you brother. I agree TULIP isn't enough on its own-- but I do think those doctrines are all beautiful and important. There is a reason, after all, why they were the focus of attack by the Arminians, and why the Reformed so staunchly defended them. Still today, they are a point of attack by many with weak soteriology, and are worth teaching and defending in my opinion. They are not all it is to be Reformed, but they are an important piece and a good starting point for many.

To the point of the OP, I get why it is bothersome that the meaning of Calvinism is often reduced to those 5 points, but at this point I think it kind of is what it is. Once a word's usage has morphed this widely, it's hard to undo it.
 
I am teaching a series on the Doctrines of Grace (preferred term for many) in adult Sunday School and have stressed this fact repeatedly. Labels can either be helpful or misleading, this one is misleading.

The Doctrines of Grace, as has been mentioned, are some of the most beautiful, God-glorifying, soul-edifying, man-humbling doctrines ever expressed by man. They exalt God greatly and show our desperate need for His grace and destroy any boasting whatsoever regarding our salvation.

By calling them the 5 Points of Calvinism, it obscures the work of great theologians before Calvin (especially Augustine) who helped Calvin, and the members of the Synod of Dordt, express these wonderful truths.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top