Ah, so when you said "Calvin invented a 5-letter acronym,"
Here, this analogy will clear it up:
In some countries, cookies have always been "biscuits". However in the US, that's not the identifier by which we know someone is talking about cookies.
In the US, if you make a video about cookies and call them "biscuits", no one will know you're talking about cookies, they'll think you're referring to breakfast biscuits.
We could have easily said "Calvin invented a system of interpretation that is fundamentally based on 5 overarching principles", but unfortunately that language is
academic and abstract
for our target audience (keep in mind I have an MBA and studied communication): we're not targeting scholars who are hyper-aware of the
discrepancies in precisely how something is worded, we're communicating on a level of
understanding to the general public (which is why our videos are so good
at breaking down complex subjects into an easily digestible format).
The message we were communicating is that Calvin used a few specific principles in an overly general way by inaccurately applying them across the entirety of scripture
(today these principles are understood by the identifier "TULIP". T.U.L.I. and P.
are these principles.) This is actually one of the primary issues Non-Calvinists have with
his system: the axioms by which he drew his overarching conclusions on all of scripture, such as "Unconditional Election" and "Irresistible Grace", are based on the
fallacy of Hasty Generalization: he interpreted a small sample set of verses a certain way and then applied them at the macro level using this interpretation.
For example, Calvin believed God elected and predestinated people in Christ before they even came to saving faith. Many of the verses he drew this conclusion from were
actually talking about individuals who were
already saved then being predestined for the adoption,
which is actually the future redemption of our bodies (Rom. 8:23),
and not initial saving faith itself. This had led many famous Calvinists since to assume that "we were already in Christ before the foundation of the world", while
scripture clearly gives examples of saints who were
out of Christ and then placed in Christ
at a later time (Eph. 2:11-13), which is why it's common for Non-Calvinists to
argue that many Calvinists are essentially asserting that saints were in Christ, then taken out of Christ, and then placed back into Christ.
You have to realize, Calvin wasn't special. He was just another guy who happened to garner some attention. I personally think there are far more brilliant men throughout
the ages who had a finer discernment of the scriptures who were not as famous. Fame is absolutely no measure of genius. And what are we doing when we study the Bible?
We're studying the mind and words of the most deep and complex being in the universe: God himself. Great is the mystery of Godliness, beyond measure. God can certainly
use men of exceptional intellect to discern the finer things in scripture, while others with different strengths he can use in different ways, there are many members.
John Calvin used a primitive system founded on a small sample size of hasty generalization axioms. Today we refer to this system as TULIP.