What's Your Take on T.U.L.I.P.?

QUESTION: Where do you align with the Calvinism T.U.L.I.P. points

RESPONSE:  Well, let me first say that this is a highly disputed and sometimes contentious area of debate for Christian for hundreds of years.  

AC3 doesn’t hold an official position between Calvinism and Arminianism.  This is appropriate since the Biblical data about divine power and human responsibility is so wide ranging.   Still, I do have opinions about T.U.L.I.P. and I’ll share them here.  I could say (somewhat coyly) that I agree with all 5 points if you define them a certain way.  Defined classically, however, I struggle with parts of all of them:

T – Total Depravity.  I agree that we are totally depraved, in that every part of our nature is affected by sin.  I believe there is no unfallen part of us.  But I do not believe that we are as evil as we can be or that our sin slavery means we are incapable of doing any good in our fallen state (Acts 10:4).  I also don't accept that being "dead in sin" means a person cannot reach out for God, since Paul told unregenerate pagans that God put them where they are to seek him and reach out for Him (Acts 17:27).  The idea that we will be held accountable for our behavior and be justly condemned because of our sin is straightforward enough.  However, if this point means that our sin brokenness makes us so depraved that we can't even reach out or even want salvation without God wanting it for us, and then to further believe that God condemns us for not wanting it or reaching out for it (the very thing we are unable to do), is, to me, tortured logically (not to mention morally) and biblically selective.  But I do believe with our sin brokenness God must help us see the light and to overcome self and satanic deception that would keep us blinded to his saving grace.  I believe God gives this help to everyone.

U – Unconditional Election.  I agree in unconditional election if we define good works as the condition of God's choice.  God elects without respect to our good deeds; there are no good works conditions on Grace.  But I don't accept that God elects the saved and damned without regard for the belief or faith of the individual.  This is so obvious Biblically it should go without saying (Rom 3:22).  How many verses are needed to make the case that there is clearly a condition on salvation – it's faith!  However, the "U" classically means that God elects without regard to works or faith, but instead for no reason at all, except God’s glory.  This is deemed as fair, because all are justly condemned anyhow - if God picks him and not her that doesn't make her condemnation less deserved.  True enough, but if a remedy is selectively applied without reason, the problem of God’s unfairness is still very real.  To see the problem you just have to imagine an accident scene where 4 drunks are dying in a car about to explode.  They all deserve their fate.  But when a Rescuer comes by, and he can save all 4 but chooses to save only 1 for no reason at all, is this Rescuer still just and fair and good?  No.  But the God revealed in Scripture is “the Rock, his works are perfect, and all his ways are just. A faithful God who does no wrong, upright and just is he.” Deut 32:4 NIV.  Putting the condition of faith on Salvation, doesn’t diminish God or his glory (as some Calvinists would claim) or constitute a "work" on our part.  Rather, it exalts God's good character, by which he is bound, and only because of that can He be called faithful and true.

L – Limited Atonement.  I agree with limited atonement if by this we mean that the atonement will be limited in its effects.  All will not be atoned.  Yes.  I believe that universalism (the belief that all will eventually be saved) is a heresy.  Thus while God wants to reconcile ALL to himself, all will not be reconciled to him and some will be tragically shut off from God forever.  But I do not believe that Jesus died only for the elect – and again this seems to me, biblically explicit: 1 John 2:2 is clear enough.  On this point I take solace in knowing that even John Calvin wasn’t a “Calvinist,” classically speaking, since he admitted openly:

"Yet I approve of the common reading, that He alone bore the punishment of many, because the guilt of the whole world was laid upon Him. It is evident from other passages...that 'many' sometimes denotes 'all'...That, then, is how our Lord Jesus bore the sins and iniquities of many. But in fact, this word 'many' is often as good as equivalent to 'all'.  And indeed, our Lord Jesus was offered to all the world. For it is not speaking of three or four when it says: 'God so loved the world, that He spared not His only Son.'...Let us not fear to come to Him in great numbers, and each one of us bring his neighbors, seeing that He is sufficient to save us all." Sermons on Isaiah 53, pp. 136, 141-4

I – Irresistible Grace. I can agree with irresistible grace if by this we mean euphemistically that God is “irresistible”; that He is a wooing, drawing God.  If this means that no one comes to God without His explicit wooing, I agree with that too, for no one can become a Christian based on their own idea alone – God must draw them (John 6:44).  But of course, this phrase means much more than that to Calvinists.  It means that if God woos you, you will be saved, period.  And if you are not saved, then God never wooed you and never had saving intent towards you in the first place (which fits nicely with "L").  This doctrine essentially sets up a complete determinism which takes human choice off the table.  When you say God marks a person for salvation, and that person can't resist, it implies not only irresistible GRACE but also irresistible WRATH, since everyone not so marked has been selected for damnation.  (Though different Calvinists do make a distinction on this point.)  The strong implication is that all of this, the saving and the damning, is unilateral.  This makes humans out to be puppets and the whole redemption drama to be a pre-scripted charade.  Attempts are made to retain free will in this system but the “I” always creates an unsolvable paradox - how can I be free in any real sense, if grace is irresistible? I would rather take the biblical data at face value rather than try to cram them into a theological system.  For example, take the fact that God is not willing for any to perish (2 Peter 3:9), coupled with the fact that some will in fact perish.  The simple conclusion is that God’s saving grace can be resisted!  Jesus said to the lost, “how I longed to gather you… but you would not!”  That sounds like Jesus had a saving intent for Jerusalem that was actively and successfully resisted.  The Bible does not paint the human redemptive drama like a pre-scripted charade, but rather like a high stakes war.  The human story might have a certain final outcome, but in the meantime, options have been made available, sides are drawn, choices are made and that's how fates are sealed.  Not the other way around.

P – Perseverance of the Saints.  I agree with the "P" in that salvation is perfectly secure for all who trust in Christ; that God carries us to heaven by his grace and power and no one, not any trouble, not even our temporal sin can separate us from his love (Romans 8).  But I don't believe that trust in Christ eliminates your ability to later reject that same Christ.  If it does, then why was Hebrews written?  The whole letter is appealing to Christians to persevere.  If all saints persevere always, because of God's decree, then this whole letter is absurd.  Why warn those who are going to persevere in their faith (because God will make them persevere) of the need to persevere in their faith?  Why warn true believers (Heb 6:1-6 - these are not people who were "not real Christians in the first place") unless it's possible for some who claim Christ to later turn and reject him?  Why does Jesus tell the parable of the sower who sows some seeds that sprout and then die?  We must assume that some Christians just won't persevere, like two specifically named in the Bible, Hymenaus and Alexander, who Paul says, "shipwrecked their faith".  The Calvinist must claim that they could only fall away because they weren't really true believers.  But I believe it was John Wesley who said, "you can't wreck a ship you're not sailing on.”

The “P” in TULIP is the one point that many believers of any persuasion usually agree with because of its comforting appeal.  I don’t begrudge them their hope in God’s sustaining power - "my sheep know my voice - no one can snatch them out of my hand".  However, I note that whatever comfort is gained by “P” in this system, is often lost by “U”.  That is, how can I unerringly know that I’m one of the unconditionally chosen elect who always perseveres?  I cannot know since it's God's choice and none of my own.  I may think I believe, but maybe God didn’t pick me, and I’m self-deceived.  This anxiety marks some Calvinists I know.

But if you ever worry that you’re not one of the elect, this should be a self-correcting feeling.  No sooner have you felt it, than you have been assured that you are in fact, Elect, since you do believe in Christ, and his promise for those who believe is sure.  Only those never concerned with the question should worry about the question, since by their indifference to Christ they show they do not belong to Him.

I should repeat that I don't make a hard stand about TULIP at AC3, and we have plenty o’ Calvinists among us, and I have many who are close friends.  My concerns are less theoretical than they are practical, especially in more radical variety of TULIP believers (AKA hyper Calvinists) who:

• Diminish the need for conversion (and accept infant baptism more readily)
• Diminish the importance of evangelism
• Experience copious amounts of anxiety about whether they are elect or not
• Believe God elects people to hell and thus can’t believe that God is love.
• Start to accept a might equals right mentality in life, church and politics because God’s Sovereignty and Power trump his Goodness.
• See public invitations to faith or appeals to mind or conscience as at best useless and at worst, sinful.
• Require a person show evidence of “regeneration/election” before you preach to them.

By Works and by Grace? - is the Bible contradictory About Salvation?

QUESTION:  A friend of mine has said that the Bible is contradictory about salvation – saying in one passage it’s by works and in another it’s by grace.  He pits Jesus and James against Paul and points out these specific passages:  Matthew 19:17, Luke 10:26-28, Romans 3:28, Galatians 2:16, and James 2:24.

RESPONSE: This is not a contradiction when you look into it – as the overarching message of Scripture is that people are saved not by good works, but by grace through faith.  The passages your friend lists as affirming salvation by works (Matthew 19, Luke10) are curious because in both cases, no one actually gets salvation by this means.  In fact, the rich young ruler in Luke 10 specifically loses out on salvation as we are to understand by him leaving Jesus in tears!

So before we’re into it even two steps, we have good reasons to pause and not interpret this in a simplistic binary way.  First, Jesus did not come to "abolish the law" (Matt 5:17) so it’s not altogether unexpected that He would say in Matthew 19 “if you want to enter life, obey the commandment” or to the Rich man in Luke 10, “do this and you will live”.  This is consistent with everything in the O.T. law:  “obey me and live”, being the repeated refrain of mosaic law (Lev 18:5 etc).  In one sense we might say, OF COURSE there is salvation by works – provided you do ALL the works!  This is what Paul affirmed in Galatians 5:3:  If you are trying to find favor with God by being circumcised, you must obey all of the regulations in the whole law of Moses. NLT  Paul even seems to think God will honor with eternal life those who don’t even have the law of Moses, when he says: Rom 2:6-9:  “He will repay each one according to his works: eternal life to those who by patiently doing good seek for glory, honor, and immortality… and also to the Greek.”  Of course in context of his whole argument, this offer is provided with a massive caveat.

A great big IF.  If one can obey all God’s commandments.  Then by definition, you are morally perfect like God.  That means you have earned your salvation, and God owes you heaven as a simple matter of fairness.  There would be no grace needed.  

Because of this, I will sometimes coyly tell people, the bible says there’s only TWO ways to heaven.  (People, used to Christians talking about one way to heaven, always perk up at that!)  And then I mention that the first way, the most obvious way, and the plan everyone seems to be working on is, the DO plan.  That is, ‘do enough’ to earn God’s acceptance.  Then, before I outline the OTHER way, I quote Dr Phil:  “how’s that working for you?”  The problem is not in the law, it’s in us – as Jesus points out in the "works" passage in Matthew:  “NO ONE is good, expect God alone.”  That is, no one obeys perfectly.

This is the entire point Jesus is making with the rich young ruler – he’s NOT perfect, though he thinks he is.  “One thing you lack”, Jesus tells him.  Also, in the Luke passage notice in 10:29 the interesting comment:  the lawyer is eager to “justify himself”.  So in both cases neither of our star moral performers is anywhere near as good as they think they are.  Jesus is actually using the law to point out the flaw in both men.  Or perhaps more accurately we should say Jesus is using his own instruction (“sell your possessions”; “love your neighbor”) to show how both men are not obeying the law as they think they are.

Let me paraphrase the conversations to underscore what Jesus is doing: 

The Matt 19 Passage:

Man: Hi Jesus, I’d like to get to heaven.

Jesus: Well, you have to be perfect, what is the standard of perfection?

Man: The law.

Jesus: Right!  So how are you doing on that?

Man: Really, really good, I think – I’ve been a faithful rule follower my whole life!

Jesus: Really?  Actually you’re not quite there yet.  If you’re so great with the commandments, then you won’t mind selling all your possessions to follow me.

Man: What!!  I’m good, but I’m not THAT good! (walks away)

The Luke 10 Passage:

Man: Hi Jesus I want to get to heaven.

Jesus: Well, what’s in the law, what’s God expect from you?

Man: Only two things:  love God, and love my neighbor.

Jesus: Alright, good answer!  So do it.

Man: Umm, uh, well, I have a question about that: Exactly WHO is my neighbor?  Because there’s lots of people I don’t love, but I’m guessing (hoping) they’re not my neighbor.

Jesus: Well, let me tell you a story (the Good Samaritan) that will define neighbor for you, in a way that will show, you do NOT, in fact, love your neighbor as God demands.

To miss how Jesus is using the law is to miss the entire point of BOTH stories.  He is not using the law to outline a way of salvation.  He is using it to expose these “good” men as law breakers.  For the rich young ruler in Matthew 19, Jesus is exposing something very specific.  The man claims to have obeyed all the law, “since his youth”.  Really?  The arrogance is astounding.  He's never lied? So Jesus tells him to sell everything.  Why?  To give ANOTHER law by which he can be sure he’s earned salvation?  No, to expose him.  To expose the fact that he is a lawbreaker like everyone else. 

How so?  Well, this demand (and his unwillingness to receive it) exposed the fact that he was consistently breaking the very 1st commandment, “no other gods before me”, with his addiction to wealth and power.  To apply Jesus demand would have broken him, and brought him to a faith-filled dependence on God’s mercy alone.  If he applies the call of Jesus, he will have to die – to pride and self sufficiency – and only THEN will he live.  That death to self Jesus is calling him to undergo (which he refuses) for the sake of the Kingdom is synonymous with salvation by grace alone through faith alone.  How is it different?

You see, faith is not merely ‘belief’, it’s a full-hearted turning to God, in repentance and trust in his mercy alone to save. 

In fact, defining the word ‘faith’ shows how the James passage ALSO affirms salvation by grace and not by works, even though James does say, “You see that a person is justified by what he does and not by faith alone.”  James is defining faith simplistically – as mere belief:  Mental assent to truth.  We know he’s working on a different definition than Paul because he says, this “faith” is what demons have (2:19)!  Well clearly this kind of “faith” (which amounts to doctrinal accuracy) doesn’t save anyone.

So when James says we’re not saved by “faith”, he is not contradicting Paul or Jesus, because he’s not talking about the same kind of faith!  To posit a true contradiction we have to be working with the same definitions.  The faith that simply “believes in certain dogmas” is not the kind of faith Paul promotes in his letters.  Read Romans 6:1-5 and see Paul calling the commitment of faith a kind of dying to sin as we invite the newness of the Christlife in.  James and Paul are here in perfect agreement.  Real faith is a whole person brokenness, it always includes repentance, and always produces good fruit.  Thus, without the fruit of repentance, we can presume there is no faith, thus no salvation.

Whenever I want to talk about salvation by grace alone, through faith alone, ironically, the Gospel passages I come back to most are the very passages that your friend says contradict salvation by grace alone!!  They affirm so clearly the central view of scripture, of Jesus, and of ALL his apostles, that we are “saved by the grace of the Lord Jesus,” Acts 15:11.

A final note about the Luke passage in particular:  If you think Luke 10:28 is teaching salvation by works, one should remember a couple chapters later, the same Jesus, recorded by the same author, is very clearly hammering the message of salvation by grace (Luke 15).  The problem with saying that Jesus affirmed salvation by works is not that this makes him contradict Paul, but that this makes Him contradict Himself!!  Clearly, unless Jesus is completely confused, he is up to something.  And I think his strategy is clear.  It goes something like this:  grace to the humble, law to the proud.

Jesus ALWAYS threw the law in the faces of proud people (again in Luke 11:42).  When he does so, it may APPEAR he is setting up a system of salvation by works, but what you see is always that the law winds up being used as a lever of conviction.  It starts as the “way to life”, but winds up becoming the crushing weight of perfection that opens eyes and shows how far we fall short.

So, when you see Jesus’ OVERALL strategy in this way (law to the proud, grace to the humble), you see how perfectly consistent Paul is with his Master when he declares: 

Romans 3:20 “for no one can ever be made right in God’s sight by doing what his law commands.  For the more we know God’s law, the clearer it becomes that we aren’t obeying it.” NLT

The only way out of this predicament, is to abandon the law (good works) as a means to be saved, and instead to repent, throw ourselves on the mercy of God and receive by faith God’s forgiving love.  And this is Jesus message of grace, consistently seen all over Luke’s gospel.  (Study Luke 5:20; Luke 7:47; Luke 15; Luke 18:13-14)