TULIP – Martin's Mercurial Musings

The truth is, I’m troubled by the discordant conclusions from well-meaning people in books, sermons and Bible studies. Everyone reads the same source material – the Bible. I’ve come to realize that my “faith-disconnects” aren’t, per se, with Calvin, Piper, MacArthur, Spurgeon, Sproul et al. Rather, these folks and countless others over thousands of years have wrestled with many questions and dilemmas that I’ve experienced. Many conclude and coalesce around Reformed Theology as being best able to explain and provide a framework to understand the nature and character of God and the world we live in. Others come to different conclusions.

Have you ever applied TULIP logic to a statement made by a Calvinist? Thomas Schreiner, who contributes a Calvinist view on atonement in the book, The Nature of the Atonement states on pg 80, “God’s wrath and judgment are personally directed against sinners who have failed to praise, honor and thank him.” My first thought was, “Well, for crying out loud, the poor schlep isn’t part of the elect and so, of course, because God has so determined, the poor schlep’s sins aren’t forgiven and therefore the poor schlep will experience God’s wrath and judgment.” Then I wondered how the poor schlep would fair when this same thinking was applied to all five (TULIP) tenants of Calvinism.

As to total depravity wherein people are morally unable to choose to follow God because of their own natures – God’s wrath and judgment are personally directed against a poor schlep who failed to praise, honor and thank Him because the poor schlep isn’t part of the elect and therefore the poor schlep can’t choose to follow God.

As to unconditional election wherein it’s God’s choice from the beginning of time to save only those God intends to save – God’s wrath and judgment are personally directed against a poor schlep whom God chooses not to elect and therefore the poor schlep is ‘toast’.

As to limited atonement wherein Christ’s death atones for only for the sins of the elect – God’s wrath and judgment are personally directed against a poor schlep who failed to praise, honor and thank Him because the poor schlep isn’t one of the elected and therefore Christ’s death doesn’t atone for the poor schlep’s sins.

As to irresistible grace wherein the Holy Spirit overcomes all resistance and makes His influence irresistible in order to save someone – God’s wrath and judgment are personally directed against a poor schlep who failed to praise, honor and thank Him because the poor schlep isn’t elected and therefore the Holy Spirit didn’t overcome the poor schlep’s resistance.

As to perseverance of the saints wherein the elect will continue in their faith unless they fall away (which means they never had true faith) – God’s wrath and judgment are personally directed against a poor schlep who failed to praise, honor and thank Him because the poor schlep wasn’t elected and therefore didn’t have true faith.

Some may think I have some sort of OCD – oppositional Calvinistic disorder. Perhaps I do – but only because I seem to come to a different conclusion when I read scriptures in support of Calvinism. And from this little exercise, it seems evident that the most fundamental tenant of Calvinism is the concept of unconditional election. So far as I understand, if there’s error within the ‘U’ of TULIP, then there’s simply no way that Calvinist can justify their beliefs. I was recently made aware of a TULIP defense (if that’s the right term) by John Piper which I plan to delve into.

Tag: TULIP

Discordant Conclusions Drawn from the Bible

TULIP Logic vs a Calvinist’s Statement