What's wrong with it?
"Total Depravity" is badly worded. It doesn't mean that every man is as totally bad as he could be. It just means that the total man is infected with sin . . . in other words, there is no part of man that is without sin. That's why I prefer the term, "Exhaustive Depravity". That means that sin exhaustively permeates every fiber of man's being. It does not mean that man always performs maximum wickedness; it just means that there is no "island of pure righteousness" left in anyone.
I also don't like the term "Unconditional Election". It makes it sound like God has no reasons whatsoever for picking one person instead of another. It makes God sound totally arbitrary. Yet I know of no Calvinist who believes that God is arbitrary or capricious. It is more accurate to say that there is "no condition of righteousness" that a sinner has to meet to be chosen as one of the elect. In other words, God does not base His choice on whether He foresees someone obeying His command to repent. God does have reasons, but not that kind of reason. For example, God's chief goal is to maximize His Glory --- so he might elect someone for salvation, for the very reason that the person is the worst sinner in the history of the world, because God wants to demonstrate His deep love and His impressive power to save. So He elects that wicked person, regenerates him, saves him, sanctifies him, and glorifies him. God indeed has a reason for electing that person. But that reason has absolutely nothing to do with foreseen faith, foreseen repentance, or anything like that. Instead, God's choice is "Lord-centered". He makes Sovereign decisions based upon that which will maximize His own glory.
"Limited Atonement" is also a messed-up term. Calvinists and Arminians both limit the atonement, just in different ways. Arminians limit the effectiveness of the atonement, while Calvinists limit the extent of the atonement. Arminians and Calvinists agree that Christ's blood is *sufficient* for an infinite number of people, and all of us also agree that Jesus' blood is only *efficient* for the elect. We all just argue over the "intent" of the atonement. I prefer the term "Effectual Atonement", because it means that God's intent in the atonement will be 100% effective. If Jesus died for a particular person, then that person's sins will definitely be forgiven, and that person will certainly go to Heaven. The atonment is totally effectual.
"Irresistible grace" does NOT mean that no one resists God. The "I" of "TULIP" is only in reference to saving grace (not common grace). And even then, it doesn't mean that elect won't resist God before and even after salvation. It just refers to the fact that the Holy Spirit will always be ultimately successful in regenerating a person and inwardly calling him to repentance and salvation. In short, "Irresistible Grace" is a *terrible* way to phrase the doctrine. I think that "Conquering Grace" is a much more Biblical way of putting it. God's saving grace will ultimately conquer all resistance. It may be resisted temporarily, but not ultimately.
I have grown to dislike the term "eternal security", because it suggests that a person could believe in Christ, then live like the Devil the rest of his life, and go to Heaven anyway. And I certainly do not believe this! In this one case, I actually do like one of the letters in "TULIP". I believe that the "Perseverance of the Saints", or better yet . . . the "Preservation of the Saints" . . . is a much more Biblical doctrine, that does justice to two otherwise contradictory portions of Scripture. Some parts of the Bible clearly state that we cannot lose our salvation. Other parts of the Bible make it clear that we must persevere in faith and holiness in order to go to Heaven. "Conditional security" makes a mockery of the first set of verses, while "Eternal security" makes a mockery of the second set of verses. I believe that Christians must persevere in faith, and grow in holiness. I also believe that God *ensures* that this will happen . . . no true Christian will ever abandon the faith. (See 1 John 2:19 for example.) And since God makes sure that Christians persevere, the fact also remains that Christians cannot lose their salvation. So "once saved always saved" is true, but only because "once a true-believer always a true-believer" is also true. So I think the "P" of "TULIP" is just fine. Nevertheless, "ELECT" looks a lot better than "ELECP", and I think the phrase "Triumphant Saints" carries just as much weight and just as much meaning as "Perseverance of the Saints" phrase. Either way, it is clear that true Christians will ultimately be triumphant in the end.
Think of that: out of all the 5 letters in TULIP, I only like the "P". The same goes for a great many Calvinists. "TULIP" is useful as a mnemonic device, but I think it has caused far more trouble that it is worth. The messed-up nature of 4 of the 5 TULIP phrases causes a lot of confusion and misunderstanding. That's why I prefer to use the "ELECT" acronym instead. To me, it seems to do more justice to the true Biblical truth contained in each of the 5 points of "Calvinism":
E - Exhaustive Depravity L - Lord-centered Election E - Effectual Atonement C - Conquering Grace T - Triumphant Saints
Article by Joseph M. Gleason - March, 2005
Click here to return to the Bible Lighthouse homepage.
Click here for a printer friendly copy of this article.