Calvinism, with the TULIP acronym which inevitably accompanies it, is certainly a hot topic in the religious conversation in America today. Frank Page, a former President of the Southern Baptist Convention, and currently the President (basically the “CEO”) of the Executive Committee of the SBC, weighed in on the Calvinist/Arminian debate with his book, Trouble With The Tulip.
Trouble With The TULIP is a brief treatment of this controversial topic – in its second edition it is only 76 pages long. It is written in a very colloquial style; it is not an academic book. Its strengths include some of the basic scriptural and logical arguments against the so-called “doctrines of grace”; while its weaknesses include some stereotypical arguments which no thoughtful, genuine Calvinist would espouse.
After an opening chapter on the history of Calvinism, there is another with a brief description of the TULIP and its Arminian counterpoints. (I am presupposing the reader’s familiarity with the five basic tenets of Calvinism and will not attempt to restate them here.) One might correct Page’s characterization of the Arminian position as “free will” as opposed to the Calvinist’s “Total Depravity.” Historically, Arminians do indeed believe in the doctrine of the total depravity of man, and that the prevenient grace of God is necessary for a person to be able to make a choice to respond to the gospel.
In succeeding chapters, Page points out some of the main objections to the tenets of the TULIP. In a segment on “The Nature of God”, he writes, “At the very heart of this argument is the question, ‘What kind of God do we serve?’” He asserts that many Calvinists seem to have neglected the doctrine of the love which God has for all men, for a misplaced emphasis upon God’s sovereignty (p. 40). He writes of the “interpretive gymnastics” which some defenders of Calvinism use to try to explain away the love of God for all. (It might be added at this point that D.A. Carson, himself a Calvinist, in his book, The Difficult Doctrine of the Love of God, admits that John 3:16 cannot rightly be explained away as less than God’s agape love for the whole world, and that it falls short of accurate exegesis to attempt to do otherwise.) The book succeeds in highligting several of the scriptural and logical objections which exist to Calvinism.
One of the unfortunate elements of the book involves Page’s use of arguments which Calvinists would undoubtedly label “straw men”, and which do not accurately represent their positions. For example, he writes on p. 40 of those who receive God’s supposedly irresistible grace as “robots who accept His way without thought, emotion, and passion.” I have read plenty of Calvinist material, both from our own and from the Puritan era, and I have come across nothing which would suggest this. Rather they would submit that God graciously woos the elect in those very “thoughts, emotions and passions”. His grace will indeed succeed in that sphere, they believe, for it is irresistible for those whom He has chosen. But in all fairness, Page’s characterization of the elect as coming “without thought, emotion or passion” is not accurate. The book is unfortunately marred by several such statements, which are not helpful to the ongoing discussion. The present writer is not a Calvinist; however, there is no value in furthering misunderstandings of others’ positions. They should be stated and refuted with as much accuracy as possible. It is my hope that both Calvinist and Arminian Baptists may serve on mission together in our Southern Baptist Convention. Adherents of both sides of the issue will take a big step in the right direction when they make every effort to characterize the views of the opposing side with accuracy, fairness, and the best of Christian grace (no pun intended!) and understanding.
Trouble With The Tulip also disappoints occasionally in its lack of thoroughness in filling out some of its arguments. For example, on p. 47 Page entitles a section, “The Intersection of God’s Sovereignty and Man’s Free Will.” This is indeed a crucial element in the discussion. Just how do God’s sovereignty, and man’s ability to choose, interact? Does one overshadow the other? Are they in some way compatible? There is much fodder for thoughtful exposition here – but unfortunately, after a very brief paragraph, Dr. Page moves to a section defining words like “repentance”, “faith” and “lordship”, and does not delve into that crucial issue of the intersection of sovereignty and will. I would like to have read more on that topic – but more was not to be found in Trouble With The TULIP!
Likewise, in objecting to the Calvinist belief that God plans and ordains all things, Page writes: “Foreknowledge does not imply control. To believe this would make God the author of sin.” This is indeed a legitimate objection to what many consider to be a compromising view of the sovereignty of God. But Page’s retort is simply: “That is not true!” A fuller presentation of a scriptural and logical argument at this point would have been more desirable.
In one of the better chapters in the book, “The Scriptural Definition of Key Words”, Page gives an Arminian interpretation of some Biblical words like “predestination” and “election” in their context in scripture. He renders alternatives for the classic Calvinist understanding of passages like Ephesians 1, and Romans 9 & 11. For example, he references Baptist patriarch Herschel Hobbs’ explanation of the etymology of “predestined” in Ephesians 1:4. Hobbs reminds us that “pro-horizo” comes from two Greek words, “pro” – “before” and “horizo” – “to set a boundary”. He explains that God “marked out beforehand the boundary” of those who would be saved: not specific individuals, but all who would choose to come inside that boundary He ordained: “in Christ” – the salient phrase in Ephesians 1. Page’s bottom line: “He predestined the how, not the who.” Several of the alternative explanations of passages which are found in this chapter are helpful, and I believe worthy of consideration and study.
The bottom line is, Trouble With The Tulip is a mixed bag. It does present a summary of the views of Calvinism and its more Arminian counterparts, and it points out some of the more objectionable elements of the “doctrines of grace”. It renders some viable alternatives to several of the typical Calvinist “prooftexts.” But the book also mischaracterizes Calvinism at several points, and lacks the fullness of argument that it could have given at others. It is not a particularly scholarly book; it is written on a popular level. One might begin a comparison of Calvinism and Arminianism with Trouble With The TULIP, but I don’t think I would end it there.
Speaking of ending: with all of the ferocity that the Calvinist/Arminian debate sometimes engenders, perhaps I should close on a lighter note? As I finished reading this book in my living room, my son Michael walked into the room, glanced over at me and said, “Dad, are you reading a romance novel?” I answered: “A romance novel?!” “Yeah, ‘Trouble With The Tulip’ sounds like the name of a romance novel to me!” I laughed: “Yeah, and the heroine of the story is named ‘Irresistible Grace’!”
shawnethomas 
I might add an update: A more thorough and academic critique of Calvinism, yet concise (only about 200 pages) is to be found in Roger Olsen’s “Against Calvinism”. I am currently (June 2012) reading this book and it is very good. I wonder if it may become the standard, “Here, read this” for young people and others who are working through alternatives to 5-point Calvinism.
Ronnie Rogers’ new book “Reflections of a Disenchanted Calvinist” is also effective as it comes from one who, as the title indicates, was once a Calvinist himself for many years.
I enjoyed reading your commentary on Dr. Pages book and appreciate your view point that Arminians and Calvinists can serve together. I have read portions of the book but not the entire work and have reached some of the same conclusions. I would like to know your thoughts on what I have termed a ‘soft witch-hunt,’ or the rooting out of those with Reformed views.
My church is in the closing stages of a pastor search but it seems much of the efforts has been aimed at exposing the heathen apostate Calvinists trying to sneak into the pulpit. Sarcasm aside, but it seems an obsession, with our Arminian brethren unopposed as they angrily denounce the views of people like Sproul, Mohler, MacArther, Piper, Spurgeon, Edwards, Whitefield, etc…
Can’t we all just get along?
Yes sir I regret the vehemence with which the Calvinist/Arminian (or “Non-Calvinist” or “Traditional” or whatever …) differences are often worked out in Christian circles. I understand some of the concerns of the non-Calvinist, who has perhaps been “burned” by a Calvinist who came as “a wolf in sheep’s clothing” in order to bring about unwanted change in an existing church. There are too many stories out there of that very thing happening. And there are certainly those overzealous “young, restless and Reformed” adherents whom most of us have encountered at some point, who seem more concerned with winning Arminians to The Doctrines of Grace than they are the lost to Christ. But even though these do in fact exist, in my experience the majority of Calvinists do NOT fit these stereotypes, and are concerned about evangelism and missions — as well as a seriousness in theology, church history, etc., that unfortunately often fails to characterize many non-Calvinists. I do think (hope?) that in the Southern Baptist Convention, of which I am a part, that the harsh lines are beginning to fade, and that there is a growing spirit of cooperation between the two camps. That should be the case. We should certainly be able to fellowship under the “big tent” of the SBC, and advance the Kingdom together. And though I am NOT a Calvinist, I do have a great appreciation for many of the doctrinal and ministry contributions of men like those you have mentioned, and I also believe that I could serve and fellowship better under the pastoral ministry of many solid, mission-minded Calvinist pastors — and these do exist in plentitude in our Convention — than I could many non-Calvinists. I do appreciate and profit from the ministries of the ministers you mentioned, and I believe I could fellowship with those like-mined (like you, hopefully!) — and I pray that is the spirit which will prevail among us, for the sake of God’s kingdom and glory.