Dueling TULIPs? Calvinism's Confusion Is Showing!

If Calvinism is anything it's confusing. Calvinism suffers much confusion these days. Given the evidence, it is no wonder. There are 1 point Calvinists, 2 point Calvinists, 3 point Calvinists, 4 point Calvinists and 5 point Calvinists. If one does the math, this translates to 120 possible unique Calvinist positions based on the TULIP alone. But that does not even scratch the surface of the variety of Calvinism flavors that are possible. Baskin-Robbins on steroids?                                                  

Some Calvinists claim there are different levels of Calvinists inlcluding one Calvinist who insists there are nine levels. See this link: https://reformedforhisglory.wordpress.com/2013/08/09/types-of-calvinism-a-comprehensive-list/

The Calvinist's article list includes the following flavors of Calvinism:                      

1. Total hyper-Calvinism                                                                
2. Partial hyper-Calvinism
3. Ultra-High Calvinism                                                                    

4. Regular High Calvinism

5. Moderate Calvinism                                                                  

6. Lower Moderate Calvinism
7. Lower Calvinism
8. Lowest Calvinism
9. Amyraldism (4 point Calvinism)

Indeed! Yes, there are Calvinists and Hyper-Calvinists. There are New Calvinists and Old Calvinists. There are light Calvinists, Calvinist leaners and neo-Calvinists. Some Calvinists don't want to be called a Calvinist but choose only to be called "Reformed" although they hold to Calvinist doctrines. Calvinism is confusion run amok!

With these kinds of designations and distinctions it is no wonder then that there is so much confusion within Calvinism! No wonder some Calvinists get upset when challenged by non-Calvinists like me. Like many opponents of Calvinism I am often accused of misrepresenting Calvinism by making a statement in a tweet or in a blog article that they don't like.  The fact is that all my tweets or statements on my blog are actually direct responses to what a Calvinist somewhere has written or stated and is usually from a well-known Calvinist. Despite the fact that what I write is always in direct response to what a Calvinist has stated, I still get accused of misrepresenting Calvinism. I may misrepresent someone's Calvinism but I am simply challenging the Calvinism brandied about by a Calvinist of a different variety.
                                                                                           

Of course sometimes this charge of misreprestantion is just something Calvinists say because they don't like the way I expose their doctrines for having criticaly errors. What I write as a statement of response to Calvimism is not going to represent every Calvinist perspective. How could it? The fact is that there are many views within Calvinism even about some of their most popular doctrines.

Take for instance infralapsarianism, sublapsarianism, and supralapsarianism which are three views that Calvinism has about their pet doctrine: predestination. The three different views have to do with the order of events as it applies to predestination. I am not going to define them here but I want to point out that there are three very different positions on this doctrine alone.

The five points of Calvinism are the five points that are represented by the TULIP acronym which most Calvinists hold to as the base for their doctrines.  There are many differing beliefs on the five points and many Calvinists don't believe in all of the five points. That is why so many confess to be less than a 5 point Calvinist.  One Calvinist told me that he was a 1 and a half point Calvinist. This kind of statement illustrates my conclusion which is that there are many doctrinal views and perspectives within Calvinism.

Dueling TULIPS                                                                                             

There are also disagreements with points that are not specific to the TULIP. For instance, there is the issue of whether God loves those he did not choose to be saved.  Some say "yes" and some say "no". Calvinist John MacArthur says God loves all men as did John Calvin but esteemed Calvinist author A.W. Pink states that God does not love all men but loves only the elect. Calvinists are definitely split on this subject.

Calvinists can't even agree on something as basic as John 3:16.  Some dispute that God loves all people or just the elect while others state that God loves all men but just saves some.  Some say that Jesus died for all and others say Jesus died only for the elect. Some Calvinists hold to Limited Atonement and believe that Jesus died for only the sins of the elect while others say Jesus died for everyone's sins.                                                                                      

Some Calvinists say that God offered salvation to all men while others do not.  The ones that say that God offers salvation to everyone but conclude that in the end they can't be saved are just displaying obvious double-speak. Calvinism is full of double-speak which only adds to the confusion. All this incertitude illustrates the confusion within Calvinist ranks.

Some Calvinists say that God reprobated the men he did not choose for salvation which really means that God chose some for salvation and some to be damned. Still others teach that God simply passed over some while choosing some for salvation.

While Calvinists disagree on many issues, some related to the TULIP and others outside TULIP; most seem to agree on some pretty commonly held beliefs.  This includes the belief that man cannot be saved unless God chose them to be saved.  Of course some believe in double-predestination and some in single predestination.

Though Calvinists disagree on plenty, they usually agree on Total Depravity as they conclude that man has no ability to respond to God. There are other beliefs where there seems to be some agreement too. These few foundational agreements seem to be enough to keep most Calvinists on common ground.

The truth is that I could go on for a long time with this discussion about how Calvinists differ in belief and opinion from one another but I think I have made my point regarding the diversities of Calvinist doctrine and the subsequent confusion that comes from this. I find a lot of websites where Calvinists are criticising other Calvinists.

Why is there so much confusion with Calvinism?  My opinion is that Calvinism has so much diversity of opinion and befuddlement because so much of what it conveys is based on philosophy and not on scripture. The root of the problem is that Calvinism simply is not built on clear scripture which open the door to all kinds of theological conjecture..                                                                                                          

No one including me should be accused by Calvinists of misrepresentation when Calvinists themselves disagree on many of the issues that are being challenged. Still I know that those of us that oppose Calvinism are going to keep hearing the allegation of misrepresentation. But really, how can they expect anything elese?

Darrell Brantingham


(Check out my pithy tweets on Twiter @confrontcalvin)