Listening to the Giants

Many individuals (both Christian and non-Christian) connect John Calvin (or his followers) to the invention of the acronym TULIP. Yet the truth is its origin should be placed on the followers of Jacob Arminius, who presented the five Remonstrances (which were constructed to oppose the teachings of Calvin’s followers and the Dutch church), at the Synod of Dort in 1618-1619 (roughly 8-9 years after Jacob Arminius died and 54 years after Calvin died). Then, because of the challenge of the followers of Arminius, the followers of Calvin responded to their “five points”, which began the “germinating process” (pun intended) of the infamous TULIP. If this is true, then when and where did the actual acronym TULIP originate? It is hard to say. Richard A. Muller states, “As far as we know, both the acrostic and the associated usage of “five points of Calvinism” are of Anglo-American origin and do not date back before the nineteenth century . It is remarkable how quickly ...

This title is likely to “grate” on some of you, especially for those who are still unconvinced of the “sweetness” of this doctrine. But before you stop reading, please read Edwards’ words below: “From my childhood up, my mind had been full of objections against the doctrine of God’s sovereignty in choosing whom he would to eternal life, and rejecting whom He pleased; leaving them eternally to perish, and be everlastingly tormented in Hell. It used to appear like a horrible doctrine to me. But I have often, since that first conviction, had quite another kind of sense of God’s sovereignty than I had then. I have often since had not only a conviction, but a delightful conviction. The doctrine has very often appeared exceedingly pleasant, bright and sweet. Absolute sovereignty is what I love to ascribe to God. But my conviction was not so.” The journey of Edwards, in regards to the doctrine of election, may surprise some. For many, he is viewed simply as the man who preached the l...

Throughout this month, this blog will examine certain “snapshots” of George Whitefield, which I hope will bring a deeper appreciation for this servant and a greater love for the God whom he gave his life to. Until I read this biography about Whitefield I basically knew two things about the Methodist church, John Wesley and arminianism. And yet one of the “buried treasures” of church history is Whitefield’s discharge of his branch of Methodism (which was Calvinistic and more popular). The quote below frames this incredible event. “It is impossible to conceive what would have been the result if Whitefield and Harris had continued active chiefs of the Calvinistic Methodists. The plain facts are these: within two months after his return from America in 1748, Whitefield determined to put an end to his official relationship to Calvinistic Methodists: this determination was gradually carried out: and during the last twenty years of his life he occupied a new position.” (p. 150) So what ...