Some regular readers asked us to clarify our position on “Calvinism.” In responding, note that we, the co-authors, are not theologians as such. We are simply examining a few points by the Word of God which we study and enjoy, believing it to be the proper judge of all “—isms”. To explain the term, Calvinism is a major tenant of the Reformed-tradition theology held by many conservative, protestant Christians. Its teachings on election and grace are derived from the work of John Calvin, a Reformation theologian. The acronym “TULIP” outlines five major claims.
Our general position is that we find most “—isms” to be faulty because they extract Scriptural elements but settle them in a fence that excludes the full Scriptural nuance and connections. Scripture instructs us to “rightly divide” or “rightly handle the word of truth” (2 Tim. 2:15) and shows that truth is given “here a little, there a little” (Isa. 28:10). A full understanding of truth requires a whole view of God’s Word, and we must necessarily test theological systems. Some systems may have a reasonable grasp of Scriptural teaching. But systems can also become “systematized error” (Eph. 4:14, DBY). We would not label Calvinism as a systematized error and agree with some of its points. But we do believe it includes faulty ideas and an imbalance of concepts. So, we ask our readers to carefully consider the points we offer, then comment on this post with appropriate critiques.
Here, we primarily want to examine specific errors in the TULIP formulation. We may, or may not, agree with other areas of Reformed theology but that is beyond our scope. We do realize that not all Reformed-tradition Christians hold all five points in the same way, so to present one of the stronger forms of Calvinism, we are referencing the late R.C. Sproul’s Ligonier Ministries in this article. Our quotations are from an article by Robert Rothwell on the ministry’s website.1
1. ‘T’: Total Depravity
Total depravity says that sin has so twisted us that apart from grace, we love other things more than we love God. Our minds, our bodies, our affections, our spirits—every part of us has been affected by sin, and of our own accord, we cannot escape this predicament.
We agree with the main theme of this statement, but it also puts our condition in a somewhat wrong perspective. The phrase “we love other things more than we love God” is a symptom, not the root. In Eden, the primal temptation was “you will be like God.” This is the real source of the problem. Mankind seeks to be independent of God, wanting to be his own god. He will not submit to his Creator. Since God is the source of all truth and goodness this puts the human race at odds, morally and often practically, with all that is true and good.
We think the next statement about “minds…bodies…affections…spirits” is also generally correct, although there is rich Scriptural teaching on what the various parts of a human being are, how sin has affected them, and how God’s work responds to each. Failing to discern these correctly does not invalidate the summary statement quoted above, but we think that incomplete or incorrect distinctions are a characteristic of the TULIP formulation and will become more serious as we continue our review. This points to how theological systems are limited, at best, compared to the “whole counsel of God” (Acts 20:27) found in Scripture.
That we “cannot escape” on our own is certainly true. The Lord Jesus declared “No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him” (Jn. 6:44). The apostle Paul quoting from Psalms 14 wrote “there is none is righteous, no, not one; no one understands; no one seeks for God” (Rom. 3:10–11). These are certainly plain in showing that man will not, on his own, seek God. At the same time, man has chosen to reject God (Jn. 5:40) and there will be personal accountability in judgment as we will briefly discuss later.2
2. ‘U’: Unconditional Election
Unconditional election is God’s loving choice of specific sinners for salvation without respect to any good in them (Rom. 9:1-29). His saving love for us is not conditioned on our intelligence, our looks, our kindness, our social status, or anything else. He loves His people not because they are less sinful than others. Every descendant of Adam and Eve (except for Christ) is a sinner. Unconditional election says that God chooses to save some people and to pass over others. He has a love for some people that He does not have for others.
Here is where we believe some truth is being mixed with some serious contradictions of plain Scripture. In God’s Word, “Election” is only applied regarding those who believe, and not to unbelievers. The fault here is to link the teaching across both categories. Even in mere human terms, we do not always make a choice of option “a” with a specific intent to exclude “b,” as “b” may not be under consideration for other reasons. The first lesson to be learned is that all human reasoning must be subject to Scripture. The second lesson is that we must be very careful when reading Scripture not to impose our own thoughts on it. A wise saying is “He reads Scripture well who takes meaning from it rather than bringing meaning to it.”3
As such, we can only be amazed and disappointed at a statement like “God’s loving choice of specific sinners for salvation,” when the most quoted verse in the Bible states “For God so loved the world” (John 3:16). What can “the world” mean but the whole of it? The Greek word translated “world” in John 3:16 is used well over a hundred times in the New Testament, including many instances in John’s writings. It normally has the entire realm of natural mankind as its subject. There is no limitation to God’s love which then explains election. This is a clear example of allowing theology to govern the interpretation of Scripture instead of accepting the clear meaning in its context.
This element of TULIP is very seriously in error, as represented by the quote above. It seems to arise from not fully understanding Christ’s Atonement, which is the next point in the sequence.
3. ‘L’: Limited Atonement
Limited atonement is necessitated by God’s justice. If sin has been atoned for, it has been judged and God no longer holds it against us.
Ligonier’s website did not provide a simple characterization we could cite but we understand that “Limited Atonement” means that atonement has been provided by God only for the elect believers. The brief quote above implies it and reveals a deep problem. The first statement fails to understand God’s justice. The second misunderstands the difference between the nature of what is provided versus who will receive it.
First, to answer the latter statement: both in Scriptural types from the Old Testament and in revealed facts of the New Testament, the atonement is provided for all, but only applied based on faith. We need to be clear about both aspects. “Misplaced truth is the worst error” is a memorable quote we once read and it makes the point.
The statement of apostle John is “He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world” (1 Jn. 2:2). Clearly, there are “our sins” and the “sins of the whole world.” Two aspects of the atonement are indicated. In 1 John, the availability is to “the whole world.” Nothing could be more plain.4 It is on the basis of the universal availability of the atoning work of Christ that we preach reconciliation to all (2 Cor. 5:14-15). The apostle Paul writes, “in Christ God was reconciling the world to himself.” (Note the use of “the world” again in these various portions.) From that, we have been given “the message of reconciliation” (2 Cor. 5:18–20). This is the power of the gospel. God has, for a time, deferred “counting their trespasses against them” [i.e., the ungodly] to give them an opportunity to repent and be saved.
It is also worth briefly noting God’s “one-for-one” equation in Romans (ch.5:12-21). We read that Adam’s sin was sufficient to condemn the entire human race. The obedience of God’s Man is sufficient for redeeming the entire race (v.18). However, not all people will receive and benefit from that gracious offer. “Many” will be made righteous (v.19) but for those who refuse this offer, there will be a judgment day (2 Cor. 6:2; Heb. 9:27; Rev. 20:11–15). They will be judged “according to what they had done” (Rev. 20:13b). God’s justice will be fully manifested.
4. ‘I’: Irresistible Grace
If God loves you and wants you in His family, He is going to get you. He loves you so much that He will ensure that you come to faith, and He is powerful enough to guarantee your faith.
Once again we believe God’s love is being referenced in an unclear way. We think the statement quoted here is correct in abstract. But when attached to the earlier statement that “God chooses to save some people and to pass over others,” the doctrine makes God a “respecter of persons” and thus unrighteous by His own standard (Rom. 2:1-16, esp. v.11). We must not confuse the relationship between God’s sovereignty and God’s righteousness. “The Lord is…not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance” (2 Pet. 3:9b, KJV). Note that repentance is what the Lord requires. This also requires an action by the person, without denying that God gives the gift of faith and it does not come from us (Eph. 2:8). But the statement that He is “not willing” points to His love for all mankind. Scripture must be superior to our best own thoughts, including efforts to explain why some receive faith and others continue in sin. It is God’s pure grace that receives any lost sinner when all deserve divine judgment. It is then dangerous to rationalize the rescue process in a way that satisfies our own intellectual curiosity while denying clear statements of God’s Word.
Once again, John 3:16 must be allowed to speak without theological filtration: “For God so loved the world.” An abundance of Scripture supports the fact that man must believe. However perverted man may be through sin, God clearly appeals to him. Those appeals cannot be empty talk, as God will not act without basis or reason. However, God acts with full knowledge and wisdom, and sometimes His reasons are not so clear to our limited understanding.
5. ‘P’: Perseverance of the Saints
The Lord never stops loving His people with a saving, effectual love; consequently, all those who have truly believed in Him will not finally fall away from faith. True believers in Christ might seem to abandon Him for a time, but if they have truly believed in Him, they will always come back to Him. Those who profess faith but then fall away finally never actually believed in Christ in the first place. They go out from us because they were never truly of us (1 John 2:19).
That the saints “persevere” is positively true. We fully believe the Lord’s assuring statements such as “I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand” (John 10:28). But the quoted explanation is adrift from Scripture. God loves His people, we fully agree. However, that is the basis of salvation’s provision, not the basis for its security. The security is based on life in Christ. The believer is born from above and this communicates eternal life. When acting consistently with that life, he cannot sin (1 Jn. 3:9 NASB),5 although certainly the believer does not always act consistently, and provision has been made for those unhappy cases (1 Jn. 1:5-10; 2:1). The new life is connected with the very nature of God, for we have been made “partakers of the divine nature” (2 Pet.1:4). That is what secures! We have a place in relation to God, and the moral condition suitable to that position. We are secure in heaven in the presence of God because we belong there!
Also, contrary to the claims made above, we believe nothing in Scripture explains how we can definitely judge the saved from the unsaved professors. God alone knows the heart (1 Sam. 16:7). We do examine “fruit” as a basis for determining our own responses to people whose profession does not align with their walk (Mat. 7:15-20). But if people drift from the Lord and continue to their natural deaths without openly apostatizing, we simply do not know what they are. We may have to treat them in similar ways as unbelievers, for example by refusing mutual fellowship in certain matters, and urging them with the gospel’s entreaty: “be reconciled to God” (2 Cor. 5:20). But this is a judgment against conduct, not the heart condition.6
Closing Remarks
We believe our brief review of TULIP theology within Calvinism illustrates the need to check every claim made about Scripture against the sum of revealed truth within Scripture. We think Calvinism correctly identifies some points of Scriptural truth regarding grace and election, but then introduces serious errors by trying to define specific terms too narrowly. The full position of Scripture is then distorted or lost.
As a summary example, “Unconditional Election” recognizes the sovereignty of God in calling out some lost sinners to salvation, but then partitions God’s love as being the basis of His choice. In contrast, “election” in Scripture is presented as a truth to be enjoyed by those who have received God’s love, and does not deal with unbelievers. God’s love is extended to both, and those who do not receive it will be justly condemned under other aspects of His sovereignty. The error in terms then percolates through the theological position. We are not equipped by Scripture to explain, to full human satisfaction, how God’s love and sovereignty function in unison here. God is greater than us and we are thankful for that, because His greatness is our only hope.
That being said, the gospel preaches Christ and the need for repentance. If you have been reading this discussion, and have not repented of your sins and committed your life to the Lord Jesus Christ for salvation, then election is not your concern. Instead, “believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved” (Acts 16:31). God’s love calls to you; your first step to understanding any of this is to recognize your need, and receive His provision. “Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved” (Rom. 10:13).
Resources
Darby, J.N. A Letter on Free Will. Archived with Stem Publishing (U.K.), accessed on March 10, 2025.
Grant, F. W. Atonement in Type, Prophecy, and Accomplishment. Archived with Stem Publishing (U.K.), accessed on March 10, 2025.
Grant, F.W. The Sovereignty of God in Salvation. Archived with Stem Publishing (U.K.), accessed on March 10, 2025.
Kelly, William. Notes on the Epistle of Paul, the Apostle, to the Romans, with a new translation. Archived with Stem Publishing (U.K.), accessed on March 10, 2025.
Lennox, John C., Determined to Believe?. London: Lion Hudson IP Ltd, 2017.
Mackintosh, C. H., One-sided Theology (Comments on Calvinism and Arminianism). Archived with Stem Publishing (U.K.), accessed on March 10, 2025.
Rothwell, Robert. What is TULIP? Ligonier Ministries, accessed on March 10, 2025.
Vienot, Aaron. Can a ‘carnal Christian’ really exist? Patterns of Truth, published Oct. 6, 2024.
Endnotes
1. See the “References” section for the link details.
2. With regard to “free will” we cannot provide a detailed review here. For a deeper discussion we recommend J. N. Darby’s “A Letter on Free Will” and F.W. Grant’s “Atonement,” chapter 1, listed in the “References” section.
3. This statement is often credited to Dietrick Bonhoefer, but J. N. Darby has made similar statements in his writings, and there may be older formulations of it back through the history of the church.
4. See William Kelly’s commentary on Romans, specifically chapter 5, listed in the “References” section.
5. Unfortunately, ESV gives a translation that can be misconstrued. See DBY, KJV, YLT, etc. for alternate phrasings.
6. See the co-author’s Patterns of Truth article, “Can a ‘carnal Christian’ really exist?” in the “References” section.
Discover more from Patterns of Truth
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.