Join My Community!
-
Google+ Join My Circle of Friends
Tag Archives: Calvinism
Why Did Wesley Attack Whitefield’s Calvinism?
While dialoguing with my friend Danny in a recent post, I discovered that John Wesley was not so tolerant of “Calvinism” when it came to George Whitefield. Danny also told me that George, “for his part”, did not generally respond to John in kind. For someone who looks up to and admires John Wesley, I wanted to probe further into the “why” question. Why would John, a man so adamant in support of unity and tolerance within Methodism and the Church of England and whose theology is based squarely on the love of God, equally adamantly oppose his friends Calvinism?
The next day I pulled a book off my shelf which I haven’t had an opportunity to read yet, Wesley and the People Called Methodists, only to discover – to my disappointment – that what Danny told me is absolutely correct. But I also found the historical context of their (often one sided) debate very telling, and I want to propose a hypothesis as to why John (justifiably?) opposed George as he did. Disclaimer: I use the term “seems” often and in a critical fashion because this is the only book I’ve read on the subject and so I am endeavoring to keep that in mind. Any historical fallacies in this analysis are probably my own failure to accurately retell the story I’ve read in the book. And now I begin. (more…)
Tagged Anglican, Arminianism, Calvinism, George Whitefield, John Wesley, Methodist
Was Jude a Calvinist? (Pt.2)
I used a picture of Beza rather than Calvin intentionally.
Many commentators I read on Jude either interpret him deterministically or avoid the subject. In fact, when I first read it I too read it deterministically. (Oh how conditioned we are; the WIT translation is in full operation.) But upon closer examination I found synergism to have full expression throughout Jude. So let’s take a second glance:
To those who are called [Jude 1:1]
Interpretation: “Called” and other related terms find their fullest theological expression in Ephesians 1 and must always be understood corporately (“in Christ”), i.e. as to “the Church”, whoever has joined the body of Christ by faith [Ephesians 1:13].
who are… kept by [“for” or “in”] Jesus Christ [Jude 1:1]
Interpretation: Jude confirms the interpretation of corporate calling by making reference to those who are kept “in Christ”. Still, the Greek word for “kept” [τετηρημένοις] means, “to keep watch” or “guard” and in its structure it is a “passive verb”. In other words, those who remain (passive) in his arms will be guarded. Nothing can remove you from the love of God. Apostasy must be deliberate (proactive), you cannot slip out of God’s hands, you must leave willingly (even forcefully).
For certain men whose condemnation was written about long ago [Jude 1:4]
Interpretation: It was written about and foreshadowed in the stories of the Exodus, of Sodom and Gomorrah, Cain, Balaam and Korah. That is, as Paul writes, those stories were given “as examples to keep us from setting our hearts on evil things as they did” [1 Corinthians 10:6 or as the author of Hebrews similarly warns in Hebrews 3:16 ff.]. These stories do not tell about anyone in particular, but only that this is the pattern of apostasy which has been common among the people of God from the beginning, and that Jude is declaring was occurring among the church he was writing to.
[They] deny Jesus Christ our only Sovereign and Lord [Jude 1:4]
Interpretation: A reference to those who have watered down the grace of God and turned it into an opportunity to sin. They deny the Sovereignty and Lordship of Jesus Christ because – obviously – Christ is not reigning as Sovereign Lord in their lives. By their lives they are denying that he is their King.
Keep yourselves in God’s love [Jude 1:21]
Interpretation: This verse was silently passed over in Part 1 and is equally silently passed over in most commentaries because it sounds too much like something Arminius would say. John Wesley says, “Jude 1:21 exactly answers the introduction [Jude 1:1].” This synergistic parallel is very reminiscent of Philippians 2:12-13 and is in line with our interpretation of “kept” above.
[Praise] Him who is able to keep you from falling [Jude 1:24]
Interpretation: God’s ability, God’s Sovereignty is never the issue. He can do whatever he wants and is certainly able to keep you from falling. But he will not force you to remain in him (cf. John 15:10 w/ John 14:23), which in fact is the point of Jude’s whole Epistle. If a deterministic approach to Jude’s Epistle is accepted uncritically then Jude might as well have kept his pen in his desk and saved the paper.
Tagged Book of Jude, Calvinism
Was Jude a Calvinist? (Pt.1)
I used a picture of Beza rather than Calvin intentionally.
Anachronistically speaking of course. It’s easy to read Jude and come away with a strongly deterministic message. His little epistle is jam-packed with deterministic words and phrases such as:
To those who are called [Jude 1:1]
Interpretation: Meaning to the preordained elect individuals.
who are… kept by Jesus Christ [Jude 1:1]
Interpretation: Meaning those who are in his hands he will not allow to apostate, i.e. once saved always saved.
For certain men whose condemnation was written about long ago [Jude 1:4]
Interpretation: In contrast to the “called”, these individuals have been passed over for damnation.
[They] deny Jesus Christ our only Sovereign and Lord [Jude 1:4]
Interpretation: Those bloody Arminian and Pelagian heretics!
[Praise] Him who is able to keep you from falling [Jude 1:24]
Interpretation: once saved always saved.
So was Jude a Calvinist? Yes, it would seem at first glance that he was. Now let’s have a second look.
***To Be Continued***
Tagged Book of Jude, Calvinism
“Why Every Self Respecting Calvinists Is A Premillennialists” – MacArthur’s Manifesto
John MacArthur can be brassy. You’d have to have guts in odd places to get up in front of a room filled with Calvinist scholars, many of whom subscribe to Amillennailism, and proclaim that they are not self-respecting unless they change their end-time views to meet his. But that is exactly what MacArthur does at the Shepherd’s Conference at Grace Community Church, on March 7, 2007.
I must admit that from an outsiders perspective I found this debate particularly fascinating, and as an Amillennialist/Free Will theist I allow some of MacArthur’s rhetoric to slide knowing that his intended audience are primarily Calvinists. But he certainly stirred a hives nest among his co-Calvin-Reformers which eventually resulted in two major responses. The first came from Calvinist Amillennialist Kim Riddlebarger (author of Case for Amillennialism), you can find Riddlebargers response to MacArthur here. The second is by Samuel Waldron, author of MacArthur’s Millennial Manifesto: A Friendly Response. Waldron’s book is particularly helpful because he provides the complete transcript of MacArthur’s lecture in the back of the book. But if you prefer you can purchase his lecture here.
Single Deadly Sin
It has to be pretty embarrassing when a renown Biblical scholar gets up in front of other Biblical scholars and builds an entire argument on a single false premise, deduced by a bad source and accepted out of ignorance. That’s what I believe MacArthur does, but it is doubtful he is embarrassed – that would require discovering his error. Unfortunately the part of the crowd that laughed and cheered at MacArthur’s charismatic manifesto must also have been in the same delusion, because had they been aware of MacArthur’s mistaken premise, they would have sat in silence – unamused by his rhetorical and obnoxious claims.
As Kim Riddlebarger writes:
In fact, it was hard to recognize my own position as Dr. MacArthur made his case. Sadly, this was clearly an attack upon something that Dr. MacArthur truly believes that Reformed amillennarians believe.
Why couldn’t Kim Riddlebarger recognize his own position as MacArthur made his case? Because MacArthur, while making a case against something, was certainly not making a case against Amillennialism! Rather, MacArthur grossly confuses “Covenant Theology” with “Replacement Theology”. (This is almost as bad as confusing Arminianism with Pelagianism or anything of the sort – but that discussion is for another occasion 
) As Riddlebarger pleads:
Let me put it simply so as not to be misunderstood. Reformed amillenniarians do not believe that the church “replaces” Israel. Repeat, we do not believe that the church replaces Israel.
I believe MacArthur’s confusion is created when he attempts to mesh together a Dispensational worldview with Covenant theology without understanding the hermeneutics of the New Testament. MacArthur is unable to get over his dispensational way of reading the Bible (i.e. Israel must always mean national ethnic Israel), and consequentially he confuses Covenantal Theology with Replacement Theology. This confusion is a major area of ignorance.
The situation only becomes more bleak when I discovered that MacArthur’s “authoritative” source is Diprose’ book on Replacement Theology (Israel and the Church: The Original and Effects of Replacement Theology), from there things only go from bad to worse when he highly recommends this goulash mess of confusion to everyone else. About a year or so back I was investigating Replacement Theology, and one of the books I picked up was Diprose’ book. What stunned me about the book was how Diprose casually crossed the impenetrable line between Covenant Theology and Replacement theology at will as if no line existed and they were one in the same. So I now understood where MacArthur’s enthusiastic ignorance came from.
Let me be as crystal clear as possible:
Replacement Theology: The Christian Church categorically replaces national ethnic Israel so that while in the Old Testament God only saved ethnic Israel, so now God only saves Gentiles. No ethnic Jew can be saved.
Covenant Theology: Jesus is the embodiment and representative of “True Israel”. He is the fulfillment of the Law and the whole Old Testament points to him. Jesus is the seed of Abraham and those who have the faith of Abraham are also his seed, i.e. the people or children of God. Jesus destroyed the wall of perdition which divided Jew and Gentile so that the two are made one “in Christ”. This one man is called “the Israel of God”. Jews may be saved today just as non-Jews may be saved – by grace through faith in Jesus Christ. The “Church” does not “replace Israel”. Israel is the People of God. Always has been, always will be.
John MacArthur has written some really great stuff in the past. My favourite is Twelve Ordinary Men (except the last chapter of course), and the Gospel According to Jesus. This is why I am all the more baffled by what he did at this conference. It only goes to show that no one is beyond stooping to low levels of caricature on the one hand and to blinding bias on the other. I have always been told that if you are going to present an opposing view you ought to make every effort to present that view as if you yourself held to it. MacArthur does not present the Amillennial view in his attack on it. That is so sad, because he will be held accountable for the people who swallowed his hook.
Time To Unlearn A Few Things
I suggest that if we put the question of Calvinism and Arminianism aside for a time and study God as he has revealed himself in the scriptures we will not discover Aristotle’s Unmoved Mover as Calvinism has always espoused; in fact we may not even discover God as the Arminian understands him. It may be, after seeking to discover the God of the scriptures on their own terms, that we may discover the God of Open Theism quite by accident! Not of Calvin’s Unmoved Mover, but of Pinnock’s Most Moved Mover.We will, in all probability, discover as John Sanders said, a God Who Risks. This – I believe – is the truth we all must wrestle with whether or not we embrace Open Theism.
Walter Brueggemann, one of the foremost Old Testament scholars, seems quite disinterested in questions of determinism and foreknowledge – except when specific texts’ call attention to such speculation – and in the debates between Calvinism and Arminianism (and Open Theism). But in his studies of the God of the Old Testament, the “Hebrew testimony” and portrayal of YWHW, he writes: “the defining category for faith in the Old Testament is dialogue, whereby all parties – including God – are changed in a dialogic exchange that is potentially transformative for all parties… including God.” And again, “The Old Testament is an invitation to reimagine our life and our faith as an on-going dialogic transaction in which all parties are variously summoned to risk and change.” He goes on:
“When we are freed of static categories of interpretation that are widely utilized among us, we are able to see that the articulation of God in the Old Testament partakes exactly of the quality of complexity, dynamism, and fluidity that belong to the post-modern world… such an open and thick articulation of faith may be threatening to some and may require unlearning by us all”. An Unsettling God; 2009, p.xii; italics added.
What a powerful statement from a man who is not interested in sustaining “static categories of interpretation” such as Calvinism or Arminianism; neither, it is prudent to add, is he interested in Open Theism. When Brueggemann approaches the scriptures he does not ask, is the God of Calvin here or the God of Arminius or the God of Pinnock? When Brueggemann approaches the Old Testament he asks the question to the ancient Hebrews, “Who do you say that He is?” Sometimes we see the categories of Calvin and sometimes we see the categories of Arminius, this is partly what makes God “unsettling”, because YWHW cannot be made to easily fit into our “static categories of interpretation” – He is too big, and we are too fallible.
Yet it is a fearful road Brueggemann offers, it is a road of discomfort; because in asking the Hebrews and not the Greeks “Who is YWHW?” he finds himself immediately at odds with classical Christian theology.
“In… much classical Christian theology, ‘God’ can be understood in terms of quite settled categories that are, for the most part, inimical to the biblical tradition. The casting of the classical tradition… is primarily informed by the Unmoved Mover of Hellenistic thought… a Being completely apart from and unaffected by the reality of the world” [p.1]
We have come to a point – or perhaps we have always been there – where the God revealed by the Hebrew testimony is rather embarrassing to our sensibilities. The Hebrews speak of a God affected by the passing of time; a God emotionally invested in his creation and sometimes those emotions are even mixed. They speak of a God whose mind is not settled and what’s worse, they don’t seem to mind this God at all! This God repents, He laughs, He tests, He changes His mind and what’s more, He allows his creation to move Him to action and at other times, they have the power to stay His wrathful hand.
“It is common to be embarrassed about the anthropomorphic aspects of this God, so embarrassed as to want to explain away such a characterization or at least to transpose it into a form that better serves a generic notion of God…. All such embarrassments, however, fail to do justice to the scriptural tradition.” [p.2]
Again, Walter Brueggemann has called us out on the carpet; all of us! Classical Christianity cannot escape the ugly reality that we have since near the beginning been embarrassed of the Hebrew testimony of God and so silenced it. It does not jive well with our sensibilities, our Hellenistic sensibilities. But who is the guilty one; are they or are we? It is not they who are being unfaithful to the scriptures; indeed they wrote them! And instead of being embarrassed of the Hebrew testimony of YWHW we ought to be embarrassed of our selves. It will no longer do, in my mind, to dismiss the challenge of the Old Testament as embarrassing “anthropomorphic” ramblings of ancient people. Christianity needs – to some extent – to put Classical Christian Theology on trial and the judge ought not to be Aristotle, but Abraham. Classical Christian Theology is in need of purification, and its filter ought to be the scriptures.
His Death: Sufficient and Successful
John writes that Christ “is the atoning sacrifice for our sins” [1 John 2:2]. Hyper-Calvinists would have us put a period on the end of that statement. The atonement, according to five point Calvinism, must be limited to only the Elect – with good reason for believing this. If Christ died for the sins of the whole world then either it failed to accomplish what it set out to do (save everyone) or it leads to universalism (everyone is saved).
But there is an assumption that Hyper-Calvinists make which I think steers their thinking in the wrong direction: Calvinist imagine the Atonement to be man-ward. For Hyper-Calvinists, the atonement looks like this:
This is an anthropocentric understanding of the Atonement. The blood is directed towards man.
If understood this way, Hyper-Calvinists are justified in their belief of Limited Atonement. If the atonement is directed toward every man then either Christ’s work on the cross was insufficient (not good enough) to do what it was supposed to do, since not everyman is saved, or it was sufficient but this leads to universalism since it means that every man will be saved no matter what. Nobody wants an insufficient atonement (was the blood of Christ not good enough?) but historic Christianity has always rejected universalism as well and rightly so. Hyper-Calvinist imagine the problem like this:
Either Christ' death was not sufficient enough to save all people, or all people are saved.
Hyper-Calvinist’s have resolved this problem by believing in Limited Atonement: Christ only died for some people, the Elect. This way the atonement is sufficient (if Christ died for some then everyone he died for will be saved) and not universal (since only those Christ died for are saved). The solution looks like this:
Christ only died for the "Elect", passing over the non-elect. This way the Cross was sufficient without leading to universalism.
Are you following me so far? Have I accurately and clearly portrayed the dilemma which leads to the Hyper-Calvinist belief of Limited Atonement? If you see this dilemma and understand one of the prominent reasons why Hyper-Calvinists believe in Limited Atonement, then allow me to suggest a paradigm shift. This is, of course, an appeal to Calvinists (especially those with an open spirit of dialogue) to step back, take a deep breath and consider understanding the atonement from another perspective, namely, Theocentrically (or God-ward). The paradigm shift looks something like this:
This is a Theocentric understanding of the Atonement. Christ died for the sins of the whole world by offering his blood to God in their stead.
For the problem above the starting point is based on the assumption that the Atonement was meant to save everyone, and if this fails then it must have been meant to save only the elect.
I believe this assumption is false on two grounds: 1. While the Atonement was for mankind, it was not directed to mankind, the blood of Christ was offered to God as a propitiation for the sins of the world. In other words the Atonement was God-ward (theocentric) not man-ward. 2. and while the Atonement makes our salvation possible, it must be remembered that Atonement itself does not save anyone. God is our Saviour.
Since the Atonement is God-ward and not man-ward, the question is no longer is it Limited or Unlimited, but rather was the work of Christ on the cross sufficient? Was it enough? Did it accomplish what it set out to do? That is, did the righteous death of Christ, the pure and spotless Lamb, appease the Wrath of a Just God on behalf of a sinful people, so that He might also be the Justifier of those who believe? [Romans 3:23-26]
“How much more, then, will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself unblemished to God” – Hebrews 9:14 (italics mine)
The view that leads to the conclusion of Limited Atonement is humanistic. The subject of the Atonement is Christ, while the object of the Atonement is God (in the Mystery of the Trinity), not man. If the atonement is man-ward it must be limited and unconditional and faith is not a requirement for salvation. However, if the atonement is God-ward it must have been sufficient and also conditioned on faith as a requirement for salvation (which rules out the possibility of universalism).
In returning now to our text, we can now agree with the God-spired Apostle when he concludes his thoughts with, “and not only for our sins, but also for the sins of the whole world” [1 John 2:2].
Afterthought:
The difficult part in this discussion is that each point in the five-point Hyper-Calvinist scheme functions as a corollary to each other. If one pillar is removed the whole scheme comes tumbling down. Unconditional Election, Limited Atonement, Irresistible Grace and even Preservation of the Saints each in their turn depend on each other so that, for example, if one of those pillars is removed the system fails. So, what do we do when faced with the possibility that any one of those points could be shown – Biblically – that it is untrue? Two options would stand before us: First, we allow the pillar to fall and let the domino effect take place; but this is nerve-racking and terrifying because it would require an entire paradigm shift in the way we think! The second option would be to use each other point in the five-points as a good enough reason to let each point stand irregardless of what can be said. For example, if Limited Atonement can be shown to be false, we might say that since Unconditional Election is true (I’m speaking as a “five-pointer”) – since Unconditional Election is true, Limited Atonement must be true despite the evidence (a paradigm shift is too dreadful to consider). But the integrity of this person is now called into question.
Tagged Atonement, Calvinism, Good Friday, Limited Atonement
Were the Remonstrants Pelagian?
Calvinists are perhaps the strongest defenders of Total Depravity in Christendom! And of course. Who better to stand up and proclaim humanities total and complete inability – without the grace of God – to make any move, inclination, or will towards God, then those who take their cue from St. Augustine, the originator of the doctrine of Original Sin who battled against the Pelagian Heresy?
The doctrine of Total Depravity took center stage and became the focus of articulation for Calvinists during the Dutch Reformed Synod of Dort (1618-1619) in response to certain concerns voiced by the Remonstrants, who were themselves (at this point in history) Dutch Reformed Calvinists. Arminius was the strongest voice of the Remonstrants, but did not live long enough to attend the Synod. Other Calvinists strongly opposed the Remonstrants.
“In preparation for the Synod to discuss these issues, some of these Calvinists wrote down their views on Human depravity:
“That man has not saving grace of himself, nor of the energy of his free will, inasmuch as he, in the state of apostasy and sin, can of and by himself neither think, will, nor do any thing that is truly good (such as saving Faith eminently is); but that it is needful that he be born again of God in Christ, through his Holy Spirit, and renewed in understanding, inclination, or will, and all his powers, in order that he may rightly understand, think, will and all his powers, in order that he may rightly understand, think, will and effect what is truly good, according to the Word of Christ, John 15:5, “Without me ye can do nothing.”
That this grace of God is the beginning, continuance, and accomplishment of all good even to this extent, that the regenerate man himself, without [the grace of God], can neither think, will, nor do good, nor withstand any temptations to evil; so that all good deeds or movements that can be ascribed to the grace of God in Christ.”
What a strong Calvinist statement of human depravity and our absolute helplessness apart from God to provide for our salvation! It affirms that human beings are so depraved that they cannot think, will, or do anything that is truly good. Furthermore, humans cannot save themselves by their own efforts, faith, or free will because they live “in the state of apostasy and sin.” It describes their utter helplessness to think, will, or do good, or to withstand temptations. The only hope for salvation is from God – to be born again and renewed by the Holy Spirit of God. The statement affirms that only God can renew human understanding, thinking and willing so that humans can do good, for Jesus said that without Him humans can do nothing. Indeed, it affirms that any good deed “that can be conceived” must be ascribed only “to the grace of God in Christ.”
One might infer that such a strong Calvinist statement was voicing the opinions of the strong Calvinists who formed the majority at the Synod of Dort (the Remonstrants were systematically excluded so that their views had no real representation at the Synod). In fact, this statement is a quote from Articles III and IV of the issues raised by the Remonstrants. Such a strong affirmation of human depravity and the complete inability of humans to save themselves means the Remonstrants cannot responsibly be called Pelagians or even semi-Pelagians. Pelagians and semi-Pelagians affirm that natural human beings can initiate or respond to God completely independent of God’s grace. Nothing could be more foreign to the beliefs of these Arminian Remonstrants than the notion that sinful humans could initiate, much less earn, their own salvation. Just as there are different kinds of Calvinists, with many Calvinists bristling at being called hyper-Calvinists, it is totally inappropriate for theologians to describe these Arminian Remonstrants as Pelagian or semi-Pelagian in doctrine. Indeed, the Synod of Dort unfortunately mislabels the Arminian Remonstrants as “entirely Pelagian.” Let us abstain from calling them what they were not. The Arminians at Dort were Calvinists – members of the Reformed congregations – who had concerns about the extremes to which some Calvinist theologians had taken Calvinism, at points probably further than Calvin himself. Caricaturing the Remonstrants as Pelagians or semi-Pelagians is, therefore, historically inaccurate and inapproapriate.”
This quote was taken from Whosoever Will [p. 3] and is a part of the ongoing internal dialogue among the South Baptist (SBC).
Tagged Arminianism, Calvinism, Remonstrants, Synod of Dort
When Roger Olson and John Piper Meet For Coffee… D.A. Carson Is Sure To Juggle!
When back in 2007 D.A. Carson got wind that Roger Olson and John Piper were duking it out over the issue of the collapse of the Minnesota bridge, he had them flown in to face each other like men. Here is the account of that story (surely it is fiction… but hey, it’s fun):
So a reader of The Secret Diary of D.A. Carson tipped the Don off the other day about a little tiff that’s been happening between John Piper and Roger Olson. A lot could be said about this, but basically it boils down to a Calvinist and an Arminianist arguing over why the bridge in Minnesota collapsed a little while ago.
The Don is a lover, not a fighter, so I hate to see people at odds with one another (you know, unless someone disagrees with me). So I called up those two crazy cats and convinced them to head towards the Chicago area so that we could work things out. I had TEDS fly them into town first class (you wouldn’t believe how much money we have laying around from the outrageous tuition we charge) and then I picked them up from the airport in the Dragon Wagon.
Now Piper and I go way back, but I’ve only met Olson a handful of times. I’m pretty sure that made John a little overly confident because he seemed to assume that the two of us were going to work together to bring Roger down.
We met in a neutral territory: Bennigan’s. After ordering three Monte Cristo sandwiches, the conversation went something like this:
(Read the rest of this near true (but not true) dialogue here.)
Tagged Arminianism, Calvinism, D.A. Caron, John Piper, Roger Olson
Truly T.U.L.I.P.
The acronym T.U.L.I.P was invented by the followers of John Calvin as a convenient way to sum up the Philosophy and Creeds of their theology, in response to the five points of the Remonstrants. “Remonstrant” means, “one who protests”, and these protesters were the followers of Jacob Arminius who were protesting the Magisterium of Calvinism, in favor of having the liberty to disagree with Calvin’s idea of Particular Election.
The reason for this post is because traditionally followers of Arminius have readily rejected all (but one or two) of the Calvinist T.U.L.I.P. But recently I read a post in which one Arminian writer utilizes the T.U.L.I.P. acronym in favor of the Biblical teaching on these matters:
Total Depravity
Mankind is totally depraved, but God has extended His common grace to all so that every man or woman can search and find God [through the prompting and calling of the Holy Spirit].
Unconditional Election
[God has unconditionally Elected Christ before the foundation of the world to die for all men, and in this way] God elected all men to salvation but most refuse His offer.
Limited Atonement
The atonement of Christ is open to all men everywhere and is limited only by our refusal to be saved [our rejection of God's saving grace].
Irresistible Grace
The “common grace” [prevenient grace] of God is given to all men everywhere and it is irresistible, but saving grace can be refused by a stubborn heart.
Perseverance of the Saints
Once saved, a person will always be saved unless by defiant, continual, purposeful, rebellion he or she refuses God’s grace and chooses apostasy – from which there is no return.
Source:
The framework for this Arminian reinterpretation of T.U.L.I.P. was taken from the article The Triumph of Arminianism (and its dangers) by Keith Drury. I slightly modified each point.
