Suggestions on Revising TULIP for Reformed Universalism

[1Cor1522]

In another thread located here:

Returning to Christian Universalism

I was a Universalist for about a year, then left universalism for about a year, and am now returning. I am looking at Reformed (Calvinism) theology right now, seeing a lot of Scriptural evidence for predestination, election, perseverance of the saints, etc. The difference being, I believe that the Elect refer to those who are saved in this lifetime, the rest being saved from the rehabilitative flames of hell. (The way I see it, the thing that prevents people from accepting Christ…

byronarn mentioned that he agreed with the concept of TULIP as Calvin devised…

As I see it, TULIP (Including unconditional election and limited atonement of the Elect) is absolutely correct, as long as you define the Elect as those who are saved in this lifetime, and give room for God to save the reprobate in the next lifetime. God never intended for all to be saved in this lifetime, but he does intend for all to be saved eventually. Those who are saved in this lifetime are those who God the Father elected from the foundations of the Earth to be a Bride for God the Son, aka Jesus Christ. Those saved in this lifetime are saved from sin and empowered to live and grow into a godly life. Those not elected will spend time in hell which will refine them as gold in a refiners fire, and once the disfigurement to their spirits caused by sin have been cured by the Great Physician, they too will accept Christ’s atoning work and be saved.

Now ultimately I don’t completely disagree with this, however I decided to hijack the TULIP acronym and have it apply to Universalism.
At the request of Jason, I wanted to start this thread with the goal of revising TULIP.

One of the concerns of AllanS was

I think TULIP got it pretty right, except for the limited bit. Unfortunately, TUUIP doesn’t do it for me as a handy acronym.

So I put together my own version I have termed TULIP 2.0:

I was thinking that TULIP could work without the Unconditional Election aspect since the Atonement would somewhat deal with that issue and be somewhat redundant. Not saying there are no elect, since it is possible that the “elect” may be those who experience “eonian” life, OR we simply should not worry about who the elect are and just acknowledge that we should still go out and spread the Gospel to all we can (in this I am reminded of 1 Timothy 4:10) There really are I think many different ways of viewing the “elect” while solidly keeping Universalism. So all that being said, here is my understanding with a revision done influenced from Jason:

Total Depravity
UnLimited Atonement
Irresistible Grace
Perseverance of God (accomplishing his work in us)

In this way for convenience we can keep the famous TULIP and explain it in a reasonable fashion in relation to reformed theology.

The Christian Universalist Association has their own version here:
christianuniversalist.org/ar … tulip.html

Total reconciliation
Unlimited atonement
LOVE
Irresistible grace through the ages
Perseverance of God

Admittedly, total reconciliation and unlimited atonement are two ways of saying the same thing. However, given the importance of this concept, it is worth reinforcing! The thought here is simple: Christ went to the cross to redeem humankind and He succeeded!

Does anyone have any other ways to revise TULIP (assuming you think it needs it)?

[JasonPratt]

Originally I had a paragraph here remarking that the CUA includes members who don’t believe everyone (aside from Jesus) needs salvation from sin, and that this might explain “their” shift of T to something else. However, reading the article more closely, I see it’s a contribution from a member, not a position statement of the group; and more importantly the author does indicate he means everyone needs salvation from sin. So I’ve replaced my original paragraph with this retraction instead.

There are different schools of thought as to what TD involves. Some believe all human faculties are completely corrupted and that’s what they mean by TD. Others believe all human faculties have been at least a little corrupted, and that’s what they mean by TD. I tend to agree with the latter, but that’s rather a technical position and for evangelical purposes I think there’s a more fundamental way of expressing TD.

Total Depravity == every human needs God’s salvation from sin
Un-Limited Atonement == God acts to save all sinners from sin
Irresistible Grace == God will not be defeated in saving sinners from sin
Perseverance of God == God will not give up until He saves sinners from sin

All Calvs, most Kaths and most Arms agree with T.
All Kaths and all Arms (and even some Calvs in a way) agree with U-L.
All Calvs and Kaths, and one main branch of Arms, agree with I.
All Calvs and Kaths, and the other main branch of Arms (with conditions), agree with P.

(I’m using my habit of calling universalists katholicists, for purposes of giving us a nifty sounding abbreviation like Calv and Arm. For Kaths read URs or EUs as preferred.)

[jaxxen]

I think it would be very doubleplusungood to have TULIP represent any system of doctrine other than Calvinism. Comparable to the New World Translation. It’s pure, unhinged Orwellianism. Do you have any idea the confusion it would cause-unless that’s the intent. Calvinists would have every single right in the world to regard EU doctrine as nothing more than the postmodern destruction of the meta-narrative and deconstruction of truth. Many traditional evangelicals already lean in that direction-this would provide legitimate fuel to the fire.

Matt

[JasonPratt]

It’s pure, unhinged Orwellianism. Do you have any idea the confusion it would cause-unless that’s the intent.

I can’t think of any situation it would be deployed where it wasn’t being explicitly compared and contrasted to the original TULIP formulation. So I don’t know why it would be causing confusion (or even why it would be pure, unhinged Orwellianism. It’s been a while since I read 1984 or his other works, but wasn’t the point of doublespeak to take terms and officially redefine them by assertion without explaining to the masses what was being done? Like taking the word “retribution” and officially using it in a fashion that has exactly the opposite meaning to re-tribution–bringing someone back to loyal faithfulness to the authority they’re currently rebelling against–and requiring people to accept it or else?)

[1Cor1522]

good.is/post/the-rampant-misuse-of-orwellian

[byronarn]

I must agree with jaxxen. Co-opting TULIP and assigning it a different meaning at best only leads to confusion, at worst it leads to accusations, mistrust, and a hindrance to our evangelism as universalists. As quoted above, I also believe it unnecessary to revise it.

As for the meaning of total depravity, the way I have heard it explained by most modem calvinists is that sin has corrupted us to such an extant that we are unable to respond to God in anyway except for disobedience to the Gospel. It does not mean, however, that we are all evil, as we. Macarthur prefers the term, as do I, total inability (to respond to the Gospel).

[JasonPratt]

Well, I’m hardly married to the idea. {shrug}

[Username1]

From the point of view of anybody who disagrees with the ‘classic’ Calvinist definition of TULIP, surely anything that causes people to reappraise the doctrines that supposedly support it (ie TULIP) must be a good thing. For non-Calv URs (like me) would assert that at least some elements of TULIP - the L bit, mostly, I would guesss - are simply unBiblical and wrong.

Matt, I’m afraid I don’t think it’s fair to call this practice ‘Orwellian’. As 1Cor1522 points out in his link, ‘Orwellian’ doesn’t really ‘mean’ what you are construing it to mean anyhow. Now, I’m not so naive as to believe that Wikipedia is the undiluted authoritative truth on any subject. But its definition of ‘Orwellian’, quoted below, seems to me to be rather instructive:

“Orwellian” describes the situation, idea, or societal condition that George Orwell identified as being destructive to the welfare of a free society. It connotes an attitude and a policy of control by propaganda, surveillance, misinformation, denial of truth, and manipulation of the past, including the “unperson” — a person whose past existence is expunged from the public record and memory, practiced by modern repressive governments. Often, this includes the circumstances depicted in his novels, particularly Nineteen Eighty-Four.

To break this down:

1. Is Calvinism “destructive of a free society”? Check (there is no freedom at all in a preordained world)

2. Does Calvinism “connote an attitude and a policy of control by propaganda, surveillance, misinformation, denial of truth, and manipulation of the past”? Check (well, mostly; drop ‘surveillance’ and possibly ‘manipulation of the past’)

3. Does Calvinism promote the idea of the “‘unperson’ — a person whose past existence is expunged from the public record and memory”? Check. I have read a number of Calvinist authors who assert precisely this, that the reprobate will be expunged from the memory of the elect. However, to be fair, a lot of Arminians would assert this also, probably more than the Calvinists, actually.

So could we fairly describe Calvinism as ‘Orwellian’? Possibly.

Shalom

Johnny

[1Cor1522]

I think it would be very doubleplusungood to have TULIP represent any system of doctrine other than Calvinism. Comparable to the New World Translation. It’s pure, unhinged Orwellianism. Do you have any idea the confusion it would cause-unless that’s the intent. Calvinists would have every single right in the world to regard EU doctrine as nothing more than the postmodern destruction of the meta-narrative and deconstruction of truth. Many traditional evangelicals already lean in that direction-this would provide legitimate fuel to the fire.

Matt

My sincere apologies if this thread has caused offense. It is not my intention to cause intentional confusion.

First off, I completely agree with Jason:

Well, I’m hardly married to the idea. {shrug}

Neither am I. Honestly I have always been sympathetic to Reformed Theology and I liked the idea of incorporating EU into it in a way that was easy to grasp. I thought it would be a fun exercise and something positive people could take away from.

That being said, quite frankly, I have no intention of trying to pass these versions of TULIP of as a replacement for “orthodox” Calvinist understanding. I personally see nothing wrong with using TULIP the way that this thread is dedicated to strictly in a “Reformed Universalist” context. To call it “pure, unhinged Orwellianism” to me is “pure, unhinged sensationalism”. I mean, I can understand that TULIP being used in any other context than the traditional use can be seen as offensive to “orthodox” Calvinists, but I don’t see us saying “This is the REAL TULIP… just ignore the other one.”

I also see nothing wrong with using an EU form of TULIP to help explain this particular way of believing to other Calvinists as a means of contrast and agreement. And chances are, it would only be (if ever) used BY Reformed Universalists in talks with other Calvinists. I am not going to walk to the local Catholic church and use an EU form of TULIP. There would be no need. There are many other ways to do such.

Oh and from the reading I have done since I made this thread, this is not a new idea. I am sure it has Calvinists up in arms but we can’t please everyone.

Again, no offense was meant in the creation of this thread and I wish you all well.

God bless.

[JasonPratt]

So could we fairly describe Calvinism as ‘Orwellian’? Possibly.

I wondered how quickly it would be before someone started complaining that Calvinism was Orwellian instead. I fully expect someone will start bringing up the point of Johnny’s original post elsewhere (I expected it would be Johnny ), that Calvinists routinely engage in an evangelical outreach that uses forms of expression conceptually much more in line with Arminianism. And that when people figure this out, they can naturally feel like they’ve been bait-and-switched.

(I can’t say I didn’t add a bit to that myself, either: I often point out that important terms used by Arms and Calvs, but much moreso by Calvs, mean the opposite of what they literally say. And, I would argue, opposite of what the scriptures have to say on those topics, although I’m sure Calvs don’t intend for that to happen.)

Rather than threading off on that (in this thread anyway–we already have a recent thread for that), would it suffice to observe that universalists (typically converting from one of the other two soteriology branches) tend to feel like they were being authoritatively oppressed by Orwellian double-speak, and so are likely to be touchy about accusations that they’re engaging in it themselves?–especially when such an accusation is in regard to something clearly not intended by its promoters to be a hidden reversal of meaning but instead intended to be an explicit comparison of concepts as a shorthand way of describing differences and similarities between concepts? (i.e. something pretty much the opposite of Orwellian newspeak and doublethink?)

[nimblewill]

I used to say that the only thing I couldn’t agree with was limited atonement. Now I’m not sure that I can agree with total depravity. I think we were created to recognize Our Creator/Father/God. Peter Hiett said in Sunday’s message that the greatest lie every perpetrated against the church was that God’s judgment and love were two different things. He created us good and in His image. We still are good, only because He created us, and we are made in His image.

[jaxxen]

From the point of view of anybody who disagrees with the ‘classic’ Calvinist definition of TULIP, surely anything that causes people to reappraise the doctrines that supposedly support it (ie TULIP) must be a good thing. For non-Calv URs (like me) would assert that at least some elements of TULIP - the L bit, mostly, I would guesss - are simply unBiblical and wrong.

Matt, I’m afraid I don’t think it’s fair to call this practice ‘Orwellian’. As 1Cor1522 points out in his link, ‘Orwellian’ doesn’t really ‘mean’ what you are construing it to mean anyhow. Now, I’m not so naive as to believe that Wikipedia is the undiluted authoritative truth on any subject. But its definition of ‘Orwellian’, quoted below, seems to me to be rather instructive:

“Orwellian” describes the situation, idea, or societal condition that George Orwell identified as being destructive to the welfare of a free society. It connotes an attitude and a policy of control by propaganda, surveillance, misinformation, denial of truth, and manipulation of the past, including the “unperson” — a person whose past existence is expunged from the public record and memory, practiced by modern repressive governments. Often, this includes the circumstances depicted in his novels, particularly Nineteen Eighty-Four.

To break this down:

1. Is Calvinism “destructive of a free society”? Check (there is no freedom at all in a preordained world)

2. Does Calvinism “connote an attitude and a policy of control by propaganda, surveillance, misinformation, denial of truth, and manipulation of the past”? Check (well, mostly; drop ‘surveillance’ and possibly ‘manipulation of the past’)

3. Does Calvinism promote the idea of the “‘unperson’ — a person whose past existence is expunged from the public record and memory”? Check. I have read a number of Calvinist authors who assert precisely this, that the reprobate will be expunged from the memory of the elect. However, to be fair, a lot of Arminians would assert this also, probably more than the Calvinists, actually.

So could we fairly describe Calvinism as ‘Orwellian’? Possibly.

Shalom

Johnny

Maybe my use of Orwellian was not perfect to the letter, but my usage got the point across. It was in referrence to taking a longstanding, well-defined term and changing it. I believe everyone here who read my post understands the meaning and spirit of what I was getting at. Interestingly enough, how do you know that I’m not redifining “Orwellian” and if I am, why do you take such a quick defense to pull out a formal definition?

[jaxxen]

Thanks, byronarn I agree with your agreement with me, the affects (effects?) of redifining TULIP and how it could relate to your own advancement of EU’s missionary efforts, and Dr. MacArthur’s definition of “T”.

[jaxxen]

No problem, 1Cor! I accept your apology, and I never took it personal at all. Even if I did, meh…
Politics, religion, family…etc, feathers will be ruffled. We’re all adults (presumably). I’ve told Johnny that he, nor anyone else needs to apologize to me, unless they feel compelled to. If I get attacked or something really heinous, then I might ask for one. But given the nature of what we’re discussing offenses are bound to come

[jaxxen]

I used to say that the only thing I couldn’t agree with was limited atonement. Now I’m not sure that I can agree with total depravity. I think we were created to recognize Our Creator/Father/God. Peter Hiett said in Sunday’s message that the greatest lie every perpetrated against the church was that God’s judgment and love were two different things. He created us good and in His image. We still are good, only because He created us, and we are made in His image.

WE WERE created good originally i.e. Adam and Eve. There sin plunged all of their posterity into sin. THEY were created in the image of God, we are born in the image of our parents-inherently sinful. “None is righteous, no, not one. No one understands; no one seeks for God…no one does good, not even one. The intention of man’s heart is evil from his youth.”
These coupla passages are used to support Total Depravity. You may dispute them, say Calvinists take them out of context, or refuse to paint the whole picture, that’s fine. But there are many more passages to go along with these.
I guess one objective that I have here is to help those who don’t know WHY Calvinists believe what we do. You may not agree with the Doctrines of Grace, but hopefully I can shed light on where we get our doctrines. That’s the main reason I’m here, to learn EU doctrine.

[jaxxen]

Jason, I was going to PM you, but then figured I should say what I have to say publicly so as not to appear cowardly. I believe I should leave the majority of your posts alone due to the chasm that exists between our intellects. Perhaps a comparable analogy would be that of a reasonably intelligent, well-read layman, convinced of the truth of EU, going to the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary website and having to discuss and/or contend with Dr. Mohler. I think your posts in general and PM’s to me have been gracious and sound. Based on your suggestion, I looked up Theopologetics and have podcasted some of his show-thank you for that. He also thought well of you. I’m still willing to discuss with you, but you will have to dumb it down a bit. This doesn’t mean that I don’t get a lot of what your saying or that there’s nothing profitable for me reading your posts, or that you don’t make good points, the posts are just kind of lengthy and overwhelming. You probably know more about Calvinism than I do-not Mohler, not Sproul, but me, yes. Anyway, I mean this very respectfully. I’ll still troll your posts. I know you have a lot going on, so accomodating doesn’t have to rate very high. Others who read this might take it as an “Aha!, he’s wrong but he won’t admit it!”, but that’s not the case. If you do have any questions for me, feel free to ask and if I don’t get them I’ll ask you stoop lower.
The one question that you asked on the other thread re children of wrath? Well, I think you know my answer. My understanding is that the term “reprobate” is moreso from the eternal perspective, but it gets used in the here and now. So, on the one hand only the LORD knows with certainty who’s who. From our limited perspective we don’t.

[Username1]

Hi Matt

Maybe my use of Orwellian was not perfect to the letter, but my usage got the point across. It was in referrence to taking a longstanding, well-defined term and changing it. I believe everyone here who read my post understands the meaning and spirit of what I was getting at. Interestingly enough, how do you know that I’m not redifining “Orwellian” and if I am, why do you take such a quick defense to pull out a formal definition?

Fair enough. I guess I’m unnecessarily touchy about folk roping George Orwell into their arguments. He was such a good writer, one I admire hugely, and such a stickler for the proper use of language, that as a writer myself (not, I hasten to add, a proper published one ) I am very protective of him. But I guess he’s big enough to look after himself.

Isn’t there an internet ‘law’ that the minute you mention the Nazis, in any context, pro or con, in any debate, you automatically forfeit the argument? I reckon the word Orwellian ought to be afforded the same treatment!

Shalom

Johnny

PS You are right about Jason. He has a brain the size of a planet, and the learning to fill it. I sometimes think, with Groucho Marx, that I have the brain of a four-year-old kid - and I bet he was glad to get rid of it!

[Cindy_Skillman]

Johnny said:

PS You are right about Jason. He has a brain the size of a planet, and the learning to fill it. I sometimes think, with Groucho Marx, that I have the brain of a four-year-old kid - and I bet he was glad to get rid of it!

You’re right, Johnny. I’m glad I can retreat behind the “Well, I’m just an artistic type” excuse.

But about the tulip. I love tulips, but I want our OWN flower. We could have a daisy, or a chrysanthemum (if we want lots of letters), or a day lily. Maybe a rose; roses are good. Probably not a violet because we’re not shy or anything. A crocus would be lovely; first bright face of spring. I’m not a good enough theologian to come up with the words to go with the flowers. One thing though; beautiful and winning as they are, a daffodil is possibly not a good choice. (daffy, you know)

Love, Cindy

[Psalmist]

How about this?:

Total Depravity == “All have sinned and come short of God’s glory.”
Unconditional Election == We are not saved according to our efforts or merits.
Limitless Atonement ==“God is the Savior of all mankind, especially of those who believe.”
Irresistible Grace == If God wills that all men be saved, God will make a way for all men to receive that salvation.
Perseverance of the Saints == Who shall separate us from the love of Christ?

[Cindy_Skillman]

Perfect, Psalmist! So simple. But hey, what about my daisy?