Goodbye TULIP, hello ... PROOF?

Many will welcome the opportunity to examine these doctrines again. I applaud every effort to present these truths in a new format, to help people get past labels and various misperceptions.

In my personal experience, however, I have learned that the primary problem is usually distaste for the truth itself, not the package in which it is found.

Nevertheless, I look forward to whatever discussion may ensue!

G. N. Barkman wrote:

“In my personal experience, however, I have learned that the primary problem is usually distaste for the truth itself, not the package in which it is found.”

While I understand the sentiment that says “the doctrines of grace,” whether they be TULIPs, ROSES, PROOF, or whatever, are true, surely it is a little unfair, not to mention censorious, to accuse those of us who cannot bring ourselves into full agreement with these views of having “a distaste for truth.”?

Paul,

Your statement is true only if you are unconvinced. If you believe the Doctrines of Grace are true, an accurate reflection of Bible doctrine, you will perceive opposition as either lack of understanding, or opposition to truth. If packaging these doctrines in a different form aids understanding, bravo! However, in my experience, I have found that opposition often stems not so much from lack of understanding as desire to avoid Bible truth because it is distasteful. But that is my perspective, and those who have not embraced these doctrines would be expected to see it differently.

Furthermore, the “this is the truth” sentiment is precisely what Aaron wants to avoid in this forum, so I will gladly withdraw the statement. (“I object, your honor.” “Objection sustained!”) I will endeavor to ignore past experience and assume that everyone is equally committed to Truth. I readily acknowledge that ultimately, only God who knows the heart can accurately discern such matters.

Therefore, let us endeavor to examine these doctrine in the light of Scripture, like the noble Bereans of old!

GNB, there is some space between these two assertions

1. Those who disagree with these ideas are not interested in truth
2. Everybody is equally committed to truth

The excluded middle is “those interested in truth, yet who disagree.” That category would include some subcategories: (a) those interested in truth and disagree because they are not thinking clearly/do not understand, (b) those interested in truth but disagree because they hold to other things they believe to be true and these are getting in the way, (c) those interested in truth who haven’t gotten around to fully exploring this set of ideas yet.

Could probably go on, but you get the point. There’s plenty of room to see another view as emphatically incorrect without supposing that those who hold it just don’t care.

In any case, isn’t it more instructive (and interesting) to look at their arguments and see how those fail, assuming they do?

Aaron,

I agree with what you said. The two options I mentioned are:

1) Those who lack understanding of truth.

2) Those who dislike the truth.

It seems to me that your several sub-categories are all varieties of my number 1. Am I missing something here?

From where I sit, yes, your are missing something. Those who love truth but disagree with you about what The Truth is.

[G. N. Barkman]

Aaron,

I agree with what you said. The two options I mentioned are:

1) Those who lack understanding of truth.

2) Those who dislike the truth.

It seems to me that your several sub-categories are all varieties of my number 1. Am I missing something here?

Rob,

I tried to cover that in a previous post, when I said I am willing to assume that everyone (who posts on SI) is equally committed to truth, even though they do not embrace the Doctrines of Grace. (ie, as equally committed to truth as I)

So, my friend, are we ready for discussion?

Am I reading you correctly, if I do not embrace the Doctrines of Grace as you do I am not as equally committed to the truth as you are? Remember I’m a northern Baptist not a southern Baptist. So, the term Doctrines of Grace is not part of my theological vocabulary except in passing.

[G. N. Barkman]

Rob,

I tried to cover that in a previous post, when I said I am willing to assume that everyone (who posts on SI) is equally committed to truth, even though they do not embrace the Doctrines of Grace. (ie, as equally committed to truth as I)

So, my friend, are we ready for discussion?

Brother Barkman, how would you begin a worthwhile discussion? Perhaps the first rule might be that we settle matters around what the Bible says and not on what we would like to infer from it?

Sounds good to me.

[Paul Henebury]

Brother Barkman, how would you begin a worthwhile discussion? Perhaps the first rule might be that we settle matters around what the Bible says and not on what we would like to infer from it?

Rob,

Please forgive me if I was not sufficiently clear. I was trying to say the opposite of what you apparently thought. What I said was, I am willing to assume that everyone responding to this post is as equally committed to truth as I am. The term “Doctrines of Grace” is usually shorthand for the Calvinist TULIP, but this post endeavors to steer us away from the TULIP acrostic in favor of the new PROOF acrostic in order to avoid some of the baggage that comes with TULIP.

Paul, I gladly accept your proposal.

So, now, where do we begin?

Perhaps we should begin with you providing a statement of one or all of “the doctrines of grace” and agreeing to abide by what I said above:

Perhaps the first rule might be that we settle matters around what the Bible says and not on what we would like to infer from it?

Great. Let’s start with the doctrine of election. Conditional or unconditional?

“But we are bound to give thanks to God always for you, brethren beloved by the Lord, because God from the beginning chose you for salvation through sanctification by the Spirit and believe in the truth, to which He called you by our gospel for the obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ.” (II Thessalonians 2:13,14)

How conditional is your unconditional? (Not directed at you, GNB)

[G. N. Barkman]

Great. Let’s start with the doctrine of election. Conditional or unconditional?

“But we are bound to give thanks to God always for you, brethren beloved by the Lord, because God from the beginning chose you for salvation through sanctification by the Spirit and believe in the truth, to which He called you by our gospel for the obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ.” (II Thessalonians 2:13,14)

It will be interesting to see how they describe each of the statements represented in PROOF. Unfortunately, one problem I see with it replacing TULIP is specificity. The wording seems to general, requiring extended explanation to have any idea where the discussion might be focused - like outrageous grace (the second “O” in PROOF). We’ll see.