T – Total Depravity
The first point of orthodox Calvinism is that man is totally depraved. I would argue that he’s right to the extent that our will is depraved, and apart from the indwelling Holy Spirit, nothing good can be accomplished by man. Pelagius’ argument was that man could in fact do right apart from the aid of the Holy Spirit, and in this he’s totally wrong. However, as Richard Hooker and Romans chapter 7 point out, although we are powerless to do right, we are not powerless to know and aspire to do right. Says the Apostle Paul, “For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out. For what I do is not the good I want to do; no, the evil I do not want to do – this I keep on doing.” Thus we see that by the Biblical record, as well as the witness of discerning Christians, we are partially, not totally, depraved. A distinction must be made between our moral perception and our moral action. Thus it can be concluded that our conscience is intact until “seared as with a hot iron,” as Paul says. One down, four to go.
U – Unconditional Election
Perhaps the biggest error of Calvinist soteriology is to be found in the doctrine of double election or predestination for the individual. In a typical Greek or Western reading of the Scriptures, which is always an error, Calvin concludes that God elects some for salvation to show his mercy, and some for damnation to show his justice. This is a complete misunderstanding of the terms election and predestination as used by the Biblical authors. A careful reading of those authors reveals that these terms are used almost exclusively when the audience in question is composed to a large degree of Gentile converts to Christianity. What was the first problem confronted by the early Church? As early as Acts chapter 6 we have a conflict arising between the Christians of Jewish and Greek background revolving around the relative status of the two groups. Specifically, the question was just how Jewish Gentile converts had to become. Did they have to adopt Jewish cultural and religious customs, or not? This was the topic of discussion at the very first ecumenical council held in Jerusalem and recorded in Acts chapter 15. The Biblical authors used the concepts of election and predestination to assure their Gentile audience that from before time and forever, in the eternal counsels of God, their need of a Savior was anticipated and planned for, no less than was the Jews’. Thus, even though they were looked down upon by their Jewish brethren, the Gentile converts were coequal in God’s eyes, and were full members of the Church along with those of Jewish heritage. These terms have nothing to do with individuals; they have to do with groups or categories of people. This is in keeping with Jesus’ own use of the term “elect,” that it refers to all those people who respond to God’s grace with obedience to himself as Lord and a consequent humility toward one’s fellow man.
Calvin can be somewhat excused for arguing for unconditional election, in that he was arguing for God’s sovereignty in opposition to the Roman dogma of the church and pope’s possession of the keys to heaven. He overstated his case in order to counteract over a millennium of ecclesiastical overreaching and doctrinal error. I understand his intent and zeal, but his followers and he were in total error when it comes to understanding these terms in the context of their authorship and audience.
L – Limited Atonement
How can it be that Jesus died for the sins of the whole world, yet by his own admission, not all are saved? If there is one question that separates Christians, it is this: how do you explain how grace is limited to some and not available to all? Romans state that it’s a matter of which church you’re a member of; their church being the only valid one. Calvinists say it’s a matter of God’s caprice; see above. Baptists and fundies say it’s a matter of not having too much fun; it’s the sin you avoid. Dispensationalists say it’s a matter of knowing times and dates, as per Tim LaHaye. To resolve this dilemma one must read the Bible; all of it. Paul, and the author of the letter to the Hebrews, make a distinction between justification and salvation, an important difference. Paul’s passages are found in Romans 5:9,10, Romans 10:9,10, and I Timothy 4:10. See also Hebrews 9:28. That is, we are justified or forgiven because of the death of Christ, which Scripture affirms as being for the “whole world.” There was a judgment passed on sin, and it took place on Good Friday. I posit that as of that day, and indeed for all time, as God is outside of time, all humanity stood justified or forgiven for all sin. Our sins will never be brought up to condemn us, as they are covered by the sinless blood of Jesus. As of Good Friday, all humanity, of all races and religions and in all times and places, have been placed “in Christ” from a legal or forensic perspective. This is not a universalistic statement, however, because in addition to being justified by Christ’s death, Paul says we must be saved by his life. Thus we conclude that there are two judgments, not one. The second judgment, which is described in Matthew 25 and Revelation 20, doesn’t involve sin at all, but rather the good we did not do, having already been justified. Like in the parable of the wedding feast where someone is invited but chooses to refuse the wedding garments freely offered to him by the host, we can be justified and in Christ legally, but if Christ is not in us effectually through his risen life, we are not saved from this second and final judgment. God’s will is that there be a complete and unlimited interpenetration of his Son and the individual believer; we in him legally, he in us effectually.
This explains how grace is limited. It is not limited in the sense of Christ’s sacrifice. It’s only limited by us in terms of our willingness to cede our will to the risen Christ in the person of the Holy Spirit and let him bear positive fruit through us. For Calvin to say that the blood of Christ is somehow limited in its efficacy is to criticize God and his plan of redemption. Any limits it encounters are the result of our deliberate refusal to cooperate with his plan which is both accessible to people yet honoring of their will. Jesus is Savior of all, but not Lord of all. To be saved is to have him as both.
I – Irresistible Grace
The idea here is that those who are chosen for salvation can do nothing to frustrate God’s sovereign choice of them for redemption. Just as the damned cannot change their fate, neither can the saved. This argument is a corollary to unconditional election, similarly stating that God’s sovereign election of a person to salvation leaves no room for human resistance. While the doctrine of unconditional election focuses on God’s sovereign role, this doctrine focuses on man’s role, or lack of same. It is inserted into the Calvinist creed to do two things; first, to make a cute word like TULIP, as it’s somewhat redundant, and secondly, to support prior statement of God’s sovereign rule. Should the former doctrine prove untenable or overreaching, then this corollary will of necessity fall. See prior arguments.
P – Perseverance of the Saints
Of the “five pillars” of Calvinism, this notion has the least warrant in Holy Scripture. This doctrine states that “once saved, always saved” and all believers who are truly redeemed shall have “eternal security.” Despite the fact that this rumination is explicitly refuted by Matthew 12:43-45, Hebrews 6:4-12, 2 Peter 1:10, and 2 Peter 2:20-22, it is nevertheless one of the most widely promoted falsehoods of Calvinist doctrine. It precludes the possibility and necessity of any sort of human response to God’s grace in Jesus Christ. Further, it would fulfill Arminius’ critique that this would make God the author of evil.
Just as Luther came up with 95 things that seemed debatable about indulgences, I offer these points to put classical Calvinist thinking in some sort of Biblical and rational context. They all arise from the fundamental error of taking a document inspired by a Jewish God, and written by Jewish authors for a predominantly Jewish audience, being largely figurative, integrative, and synthetic, and reading it from a literal, individualistic, and analytical Greek or Western point of view. Such an approach violates every tenet of proper exegesis, and results in a gross distortion of the propositional truth contained therein. The fruit of Calvinist thinking is bitter indeed. It is repulsive to the mind, enervating to the heart, and destructive to the spread of the Gospel. As Will Durant writes,
“… we shall always find it hard to love the man who darkened the human soul with the most absurd and blasphemous conception of God in all the long and honored history of nonsense.”
