Our mid-western correspondent alerted me to a piece over at American Vision which is critical of the recent resurgence of Calvinism — as in Young, Restless, and Reformed — for regarding personal salvation as the essence of Calvinism. For the author, TULIP is well and good. It affirms God’s sovereignty. But it hardly covers what it means to be Reformed.
. . . TULIP is not the essence of the Reformed theology. Of course, the doctrines of Total Depravity, Unconditional Election, Limited Atonement, Irresistible Grace, and Perseverance of the Saints are an important starting step to the immense body of theological truths called “Reformed theology.†It follows directly from the greater concept of the Sovereignty of God. It correctly describes the fallen state of man and the work of God in saving the individual. When we look up to God to give thanks for what He has done for us personally, we think “TULIP,†even if we never knew the term or never understood it.
To summarize, TULIP is the acronym for the “mechanism†of our personal salvation. And that’s it. Nothing more than our personal salvation. But Reformed theology encompasses immeasurably more than just personal salvation. And when a church makes TULIP the summa of its theology, that church is not Reformed. Yes, it has taken the first step to becoming Reformed, but it is still far from the goal.
So if the doctrines of grace are just a start then where does the Reformed faith lead?
It was not churches full of believers who earnestly study theology only to revel in their personal salvation. In fact, with two exceptions – Scotland and Hungary – the early Reformers didn’t leave us any lasting churches at all. It was not intellectualized sermons of elaborate psychological verbiage that pick on every feeling and every emotion a believer may have. It was not courageous sermons on irrelevant topics of peripheral importance to our age and culture. And it certainly wasn’t a belief in a God who is only sovereign to save individuals, but nothing else.
Their most lasting legacy was on the cultivation of societies, whole cultures based on the practical applications of Reformed theology, from top to bottom. Geneva, Strasbourg, Holland, England, Scotland, Hungary, the Huguenot communities in France and later in North and South Carolina, the Oranje-Vrystaat and Transvaal. Societies that became light to the world, an embodiment of Christ’s liberty and justice for all. The Reformed believers of earlier centuries built a civilization that influenced the world permanently. They changed the world not by the selfishness of the focus on salvation but by the obedience of teaching the nations and building the Kingdom of God.
To counter this Whiggish and transformational view of Reformed Protestantism, one could seemingly emphasize a number of truths. But the one that seems to make the biggest dent is justification by faith alone, where personal salvation is the point of Christ’s saving work, and where the kingdom comes not through civil kingdoms or magistrates but where believers confess and worship Christ as Lord and savior.
On the other hand, a view of salvation that looks for the proximity of faith and good works, and sees personal transformation as a barometer of Christ’s work will often be hamfisted in opposing transformationalism. It’s as if the Reformed faith is chopped liver for serving up an alien righteousness when what we really need for the kingdom to exist and thrive is a personal and active righteousness.
Anyway, arguments like American Vision’s are part of the reason for countering with justification-priority.
Old Life 
One must either (a) admit that John Piper is a member in good standing of the Reformed community, or (b) recognize that TULIP is not the fullness of Reformed theology.
LikeLike
C’mon,
Everyone knows Reformed theology really is about dressing your sons up in Confederate garb and not allowing women to vote for pastors. Get with the Bible dude!
LikeLike
While there’s more to Reformed theology than just the soteriological aspects of TULIP, that doesn’t mean its fulfillment is all eschatology (and over-realized, at that).
LikeLike
Jeff, John Piper? When did Baptists become a Reformed church?
LikeLike
I’d say Baptists became a Reformed church in 1689.
LikeLike
Piper doesn’t even have an orthodox view of Limited Atonement and affirmed Doug Wilson
LikeLike
Evan, so how are Baptists Reformed if they don’t baptize babies, and in fact would insist on rebaptizing someon baptized in a Reformed church?
LikeLike
Well, if by “Reformed” you mean “covenantal” perhaps they’re not. If you mean, as I did, “Calvinistic” then Reformed Baptists are indeed Reformed.
LikeLike
Evan, Calvinistis is fine. But you see how you have whittled down the Reformed faith by calling Baptists Reformed. Plus, it is a very serious matter to call for rebaptizing of those baptized as infants.
LikeLike
That may be, but I think Reformed has to be broader than Calvinist Presbyterian Amillennial. Call me a compromiser, but I’d much rather have Spurgeon and Ryle in my corner than many who call themselves Reformed today.
LikeLike
I think DGH wins this one. If there is anything close to a center of Reformed theology, at least since the 17th century, it is the covenants, not TULIP. If holding to Calvinism made one Reformed, we’d have to admit to give a Reformed club card to John MacArthur, who is not only a credo-baptist, but premillennial, dispensationalist, and quite hostile to Reformed covenantalist theology. We can value the Calvinistic Baptists for what they are, but it confuses a great many people as to what Reformed theology is about to call these men “Reformed.”
LikeLike
CVD, word.
Evan, I’d rather have an ordinary paedobaptist in my corner than a superstar credo-baptist. Maybe celebrity is your measuring rod? I’ll go with sacramentology though.
LikeLike
Umm … I hope no-one got the impression that I think Piper is Reformed?!
LikeLike
Evan, why not just call it “Evaned” for all those whom Evan appreciates and finds correct?
LikeLike
I grew up in a Reformed Baptist church where we heard much about the TULIP but nothing about the covenants. No visible/invisible distinction. No understanding of the external administration of the covenant of grace that gives support to our weak faith. The sacraments become basically superfluous. As a child growing up, waiting for the time when I can be sure that I really, savingly believe, (based largely on my subjective feelings) it’s all a bit scary. The difference is much bigger than simply a question of what age we baptize at.
LikeLike
@Zrim and dgh- I’m willing to admit that I’m wrong. No need to be impolite about it.
LikeLike
Evan, who’s being impolite. Part of what being Reformed means is belonging to a Reformed church. You, like many, tend to have an abstract idea of Reformed, touching upon certain points of theology. That’s fine for your own self-understanding. But it doesn’t pay much regard for church membership or church office.
LikeLike
Evan, you suggested you could be called a “compromiser” for wanting a famous credo-baptist in your paedobaptist corner. I didn’t call you a name, even though you offered (but I get it, it was rhetorical). I’m simply suggesting that it may be celebrity that is driving you instead of sacramentology. I’m not sure what else to make of your statement, are you?
LikeLike
But I would agree that the TULIP itself is problematic. Not only does its elevation foster the feeling that Calvinism is mainly to do with predestination, but it’s not even a fair representation of Dort. I found the following article by Muller interesting:
Click to access Richard%20Muller%20-%20Was%20Calvin%20a%20Calvinist.pdf
LikeLike
Apparently I didn’t make it clear the first time. I admit that my assessment of the situation was incorrect and disavow my previous statements as to the Reformed nature of Calvinistic Baptists, etc. CVanDyke’s comment drove me to rethink my rather hasty posts.
Regarding impoliteness,
@Zrim- I found your assumption that the reason I selected Spurgeon based on his celebrity to be rather insulting. It assumes you understand my thought process. In fact, I selected Spurgeon because his sermons have meant a great deal to me personally and have helped me better articulate the difference between Calvinism and Arminianism in conversation with friends who do not share my convictions on the matter.
@dgh- Sarcasm is almost never helpful, especially in a forum such as this where it is very easy to misunderstand one another even when words are clear. It’s not the sort of response I’d expect from a gentleman scholar who has done so much good work for the Church and who, as an elder, is bound to instruct and reprove gently, leading those with lesser understanding (that would be me).
I think that, as brothers in the Lord, we can disagree kindly, and should, when disagreeing, focus on the ideas at hand, not the person posing them. Perhaps I’m overly sensitive to these things and, if I’ve overstated perceived faults, I can only beg your indulgence.
LikeLike
Evan, fair point and well taken. But it’s not always a matter of divining another’s private thoughts. Sometimes it’s just taking what is said and suggesting, which is why I said I was suggesting. And not to take anything away from the edification you received from Spurgeon, but I can think of some paedo’s who are just as soteriologically dashing, if not more. Just please don’t tell me you have a tee shirt with Spurgeon’s image emblazoned on it.
LikeLike
@Zrim- Thanks for understanding.
I’m not the kind of person that would wear t-shirts with logos or faces so you don’t have to worry.
LikeLike
Evan, I regret that you found my sarcasm objectionable. You should know, though, that sarcasm and irreverence are part of what we do at oldlife.
LikeLike
I don’t think Piper himself claims to be Reformed. Under the “beliefs” section of his church’s website they say they are “Calvinistic” and “Baptistic.”
Piper isn’t even a confessional Baptist, which makes me wonder how one gets into the Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals.
LikeLike