Podcast Summary: Ask Ligonier – “Where Did TULIP Come From?”

Date: October 30, 2025
Host: Nathan W. Bingham
Guest: Dr. W. Robert Godfrey
Main Theme: The origin and meaning of the TULIP acrostic in Calvinism

Episode Overview

In this episode, recorded live at Ligonier’s 2025 National Conference, Dr. W. Robert Godfrey addresses a listener question on the origins and meaning of the TULIP acrostic, often used to summarize the “five points of Calvinism”. Dr. Godfrey traces TULIP’s English roots, connects it to the Synod of Dort, and highlights distinctions between Calvinist doctrine and the five points structure. He also emphasizes the limitations of TULIP as a full summary of the Reformed faith.

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. TULIP’s English Origins

• TULIP as an English-Speaking Device:
  • TULIP is an “abbreviation … used in English to talk about what we call the five points of Calvinism.”
  • “It doesn’t work in Dutch or in Latin. So this is a way that English speakers came to try to summarize for themselves the five points of Calvinism.” (Dr. Godfrey, 00:21)
  • The precise historical origin in English theology is unknown.

2. Connection to Synod of Dort and Arminianism

• Arminian vs. Calvinist Five Points:

  • “The five points of Calvinism were articulated at the Synod of Dort … as a result of the controversy that surrounded Jacob Arminius.” (00:53)
  • “Arminius actually saw his disagreements with historic Calvinism in five Points … Calvinism had five answers to the five Arminian errors. So that’s important to remember.” (01:01)
  • Historically, Calvinism was not originally summarized in ‘five points’; this structure was a reaction to Arminianism.

• Proper Calvinist Summaries:

  • For a summary of Calvinist faith, “hand them the Heidelberg Catechism or the Belgian Confession, or in extremists, the Westminster Confession of Faith. These are the summaries of Calvinism that Calvinists wrote to express their own faith.” (01:30)
  • TULIP “is just the answers to the errors of Arminianism, not a full orbed summary of Calvinism.” (01:45)

3. The Logical Order and Limitations of TULIP

• Order Differences (TULIP vs. Dort):

  • “Tulip is a slight shift from where the Synod of Dort came down. If you followed the order at Dort, you would have Ultip instead of Tulip. And Old Tip doesn’t work all that well. Nobody’s going to remember Old Tip.” (01:55)
  • The Synod discussed:
    1. Unconditional election
    2. Limited atonement
    3. Total depravity
    4. Irresistible grace
    5. Perseverance of the saints

• Appeal and Logic of TULIP:

  • “The attraction of Tulip, I think, is that there is a kind of logic to the Order of Tulip. And I do believe if you start with total depravity and you get people to really understand total depravity, then the rest of Calvinism does flow logically.” (02:21)

• Source of Belief:

  • Dr. Godfrey emphasizes, “We don’t believe it because it’s logical. We believe it because it’s biblical and we can show biblical texts to support each of these points.” (02:34)

4. TULIP is Not the Whole of Calvinism

• Language Boundaries:
  • “It really only works well in the English language.” (03:45)
• Summary Limitation:
  • TULIP is “not a summary of all of Calvinism.” (03:40)

Notable Quotes & Timestamps

• On TULIP’s English Origin:

  • “It’s obviously from the English speaking world because it doesn’t work in Dutch or in Latin.” (00:25) – Dr. W. Robert Godfrey

• Historical Context:

  • “So Arminius actually saw his disagreements with historic Calvinism in five Points. So Calvinism has never defined itself or summarized itself in five Points.” (01:00) – Dr. W. Robert Godfrey

• Summary vs. Response:

  • “What we call Tulip is … just the answers to the errors of Arminianism, not a full orbed summary of Calvinism.” (01:45) – Dr. W. Robert Godfrey

• On the mnemonic device:

  • “If you followed the order at Dort, you would have Ultip instead of Tulip. And Old Tip doesn’t work all that well. Nobody’s going to remember Old Tip.” (02:02) – Dr. W. Robert Godfrey

• Logical Flow:

  • “If you start with total depravity and you get people to really understand total depravity, then the rest of Calvinism does flow logically.” (02:23) – Dr. W. Robert Godfrey

• Biblical Basis:

  • “We don’t believe it because it’s logical. We believe it because it’s biblical and we can show biblical texts to support each of these points.” (02:34) – Dr. W. Robert Godfrey

Important Timestamps

• 00:04 – Listener question: “Where did the acrostic Tulip come from?”
• 00:21–01:40 – Dr. Godfrey explains TULIP’s origin, connection to Synod of Dort and Arminian controversy
• 01:41–02:34 – Critique of TULIP as a full-orbed summary, differences with Dort’s order, and logic of TULIP structure
• 02:35–03:45 – The English-language utility of TULIP and clarifying its limited scope

Summary Table: TULIP vs. Order at Synod of Dort

| TULIP (Mnemonic) | Synod of Dort’s Order | |------------------------- |---------------------------| | T: Total depravity | Unconditional election | | U: Unconditional election | Limited atonement | | L: Limited atonement | Total depravity | | I: Irresistible grace| Irresistible grace | | P: Perseverance of saints | Perseverance of saints |

Final Thoughts

Dr. Godfrey’s remarks clarify that TULIP is a helpful, memorable summary for English speakers, but it is not a comprehensive expression of Calvinism. More robust confessional documents like the Heidelberg Catechism or the Westminster Confession offer a fuller picture. TULIP’s development was a response to Arminianism, and its structure is both a product of polemical history and pedagogical convenience.

For those seeking a full understanding of Calvinist theology, Dr. Godfrey encourages engagement with historic Reformed confessions alongside a recognition of TULIP’s helpful – but limited – role.