To say that those who accept the finished work of Jesus for their salvation are elect is to say that Christ's death is effective for the elect. To say that dead men are not truly, completely dead is a doctrine in clear conflict with Scripture, Calvin or otherwise.
It should always be emphasized that the Five Points of Calvinism are not meant or felt to be by Reformed Christians to be the key points of Christianity. They are simply refutations and distinctions against the previously published Five Points of Arminianism. A good and helpful history lesson.
Thanks for the comment, Jon. I was certainly challenged in my studies on post-Calvin "Calvinism." To be clear, I am not a Calvinist by any definition of the term, but it is supremely helpful to keep the history of the church within its historical context.
I am not entirely sure who was the originator of the acrostic itself. I'm sure a better-qualified historian could provide the answer to that. But it is helpful, I think, to remember the intent of the acrostic *wasn't* for catechesis but apologetics.
“Calvinism” is much debated in my circles. What we who defend it (for the most part) find is that there are many incorrect assumptions made by detractors who have only a superficial understanding and go about banging the anti-Calvinist drum. A clear definition of terms is crucial and this helps!
Thanks for the comment, Lyle. While I am not a Calvinist, doctrinally speaking, I am certainly aware of the aspersions and misconceptions often cast on those who subscribe to that interpretation of Scripture, many of which have done a great disservice to the faith. Hopefully, this brief entry offers a better way forward.
To say that those who accept the finished work of Jesus for their salvation are elect is to say that Christ's death is effective for the elect. To say that dead men are not truly, completely dead is a doctrine in clear conflict with Scripture, Calvin or otherwise.
I agree, Jason. Thanks for commenting!
Thank you! Some helpful points when thinking about the history of Calvinist soteriology...or "Calvinist" soteriology.
Thanks, Amy 🙏
It should always be emphasized that the Five Points of Calvinism are not meant or felt to be by Reformed Christians to be the key points of Christianity. They are simply refutations and distinctions against the previously published Five Points of Arminianism. A good and helpful history lesson.
Thanks for the comment, Jon. I was certainly challenged in my studies on post-Calvin "Calvinism." To be clear, I am not a Calvinist by any definition of the term, but it is supremely helpful to keep the history of the church within its historical context.
I wonder, then, who came up with this English acrostic to explain Beza’s refutation of Arminianism?
I am not entirely sure who was the originator of the acrostic itself. I'm sure a better-qualified historian could provide the answer to that. But it is helpful, I think, to remember the intent of the acrostic *wasn't* for catechesis but apologetics.
Very helpful! Thank you brother! Also, the thought occurred to me that TULIP is an English acrostic and Calvin spoke French.
“Calvinism” is much debated in my circles. What we who defend it (for the most part) find is that there are many incorrect assumptions made by detractors who have only a superficial understanding and go about banging the anti-Calvinist drum. A clear definition of terms is crucial and this helps!
Thx!
Thanks for the comment, Lyle. While I am not a Calvinist, doctrinally speaking, I am certainly aware of the aspersions and misconceptions often cast on those who subscribe to that interpretation of Scripture, many of which have done a great disservice to the faith. Hopefully, this brief entry offers a better way forward.