Wednesday, July 25, 2012

The TULIP Revisited

I happened to stumble across a blog posting from over 3 years ago at Beggars All which pits my response to Akin's "Tiptoe Through the TULIP" article against who is right or wrong.  

It would be nice if someone is going to publish something about an article written by someone else that they would at least post a comment in the original blog to let the original author(s) know the existence of such "responses."  I'm sure this is a bit like "old news" to Mr. Swan and Co., but I just saw this - so I am responding now.   Mr. Akin and/or Mr. Swan can easily find articles I've written on my blog which directly concern them by using the "Label" of their name.  There are, as of this posting, now 4 articles involving Mr. Akin and 19 involving Mr. Swan.

For context, here are the links to the original articles:
Jimmy Akin's "Tiptoe Through the TULIP" article:
My response to Jimmy Akin:
And here is the link to Mr. Swan's:

The content of Swan's post is this:

Friday, January 23, 2009

Here was an interesting exchange by Jimmy Akin and Scott Windsor on how to deal with Calvinists that swim the Tiber.

Jimmy Akin proposes Calvinists converting to Rome can keep "TULIP" if they understand it this way:
A Thomistic TULIP

In view of this all, we might propose a Thomist version of TULIP
T = Total inability (to please God without special grace)
U = Unconditional election
L = Limited intent (for the atonement's efficacy)
I = Intrinsically efficacious grace (for salvation)
P = Perseverance of the elect (until the end of life).

There are other ways to construct a Thomist version of TULIP, of course, but the fact there is even one way demonstrates that a Calvinist would not have to repudiate his understanding of predestination and grace to become Catholic. He simply would have to do greater justice to the teaching of Scripture and would have to refine his understanding of perseverance.
Scott Windsor's approach:
That is well and good, but the criticism of using their terminology still exists (as with my initial article which did much the same as Akin's here does). If one is to convert to the True Church, then why hang on to errors of the past at all? When one converts, they need to RENOUNCE their past - and EMBRACE that which they now KNOW to be the Truth. Let's not "tiptoe through TULIP," let's just crush the TULIP so they can move on and know the Truth.
Hmm... let's see...which one is the correct approach?

In reality, Calvinism is quite different from Catholicism.  I would also encourage the reader to go back and read my article (which includes Akin's and then responds) to get the bigger picture of what I was saying and not merely my closing remark.



  1. Clearly, Swan's approach is to try and show disunity between Catholics - what he fails to understand is that we may have differences of opinions on how we approach apologetics - but there is no such disunity among faithful Catholics on matters of dogma.  Those who disagree with ANY dogma of the Catholic Church are not in full communion (not faithful Catholics).
    In JMJ,

  2. Is there any reason to believe that predestination (in contrast to justification) was at the heart of the dispute in the early Reformation? It wasn't central to Exsurge, Domine. It wasn't central to the Augsburg Confession (or Catholic responses to it).  It wasn't addressed thoroughly by the Council of Trent. 

  3. Points well taken.  Thank you Matthew.
    In JMJ,


Keep in mind while posting:
1) Please respond ON TOPIC to the article at hand.
2) Posts more than 4 weeks old are set to automatically save new comments for moderation - so your comment may not show up immediately if you're responding to an older post.
3) The "Spam Filter" is on - and randomly messages get caught in that filter. I have no control over which messages get caught in the spam filter and those that do must wait for me to mark them as "not spam." A message caught by the spam filter may show up for a moment, making you think it posted, and then disappear. Do not assume I have deleted your comment, it's probably just the spam filter and it will show up.