I am going to try over the next few blogs to give an accurate biblical and theological description of the theological themes found in the acrositc, TULIP.  Rememering that these themes emerge out of the writings of John Calvin and that they are rightly and wrongly understood by many Calvinists and often pushed to extremes Calvin never would have dreamed by hyper-Calvinists, my goal is rather modest.  I have no intention of showing how each has been understood and misunderstood; I simply want to show what each means a biblical context as Calvin understood these themes through his own reading and studying of Scripture.  All of this effort, however, needs an introduction which I intend to give in this blog and perhaps one more. 

Several introductory issues need to be addressed.  First, what is TULIP?  Second, do these words form a sentence so that one cannot be assessed apart from the rest (the answer is “yes” and thus a major flaw in those who would isolate any one point and address it separate from the rest).  Third, what is the opposite of TULIP and fourth what are the keys to understanding the acrostic?  TULIP stands for what is known as the five points of Calvinism:  Total depravity, Unconditional Election, Limited atonement, and Perseverance of the Saints.  There are five point Calvinists, some who call themselves four and four and one-half point Calvinstis etc.  But the truth is that the five points form the focal emphases of one theological system.  And it is so important to recongize right here and right now yet again that no theological system is inerrant and infallible; it is what it is and no more–a way of seeing theologically the absolute truth of God as He reveals it to us in His Word.  It is not perfect as a system as is no other; it is one way of looking at what the Bible teaches.  And is so often the case when humans get their hands on systems, we tend to exalt one element of the system to the exclusion of the rest. 

This has often happened with hyper-Calvinists who so exalt the sovereignty of God that humans become puppets in a play and God becomes the great puppet master.  Remember that Solomon speaks of man making his plan but his steps are ordered by God.  This is just one simple reference among many that make plain that God’s sovereignty must be balanced by human responsibility.  Human responsibility without God’s sovereignty turns man into “god.”  Divine sovereignty without human responsibility turns man into a machine.  Neither is biblical.

Now the opposite of TULIP is not PILUT (wich is simply the southern pronunciation of Pontius Pilot).  The opposite is what is known as Arminianism or Pelagianism the heart of which is that the commitment to God is a choice made by humans at any time and in any place out of the desire of the human to engage in a relationship with God.  The first part of the above sentence would be fully affirmed by many Calvinists:  humans respond to the work of the Holy Spirit in our lives that Spirit being the Spirit of God who brings conviction of sin and awakens in us repentance and faith so that we give our lives to Jesus.  It is the second part of this sentence that is the sticking point because it assumes that there is within us that which longs for God and desires Him in something of the same way though not to the extent or with the same intensity that He desires us.  The classic Pelagian would argue that the choice for salvation is with us so that the grace of God can be resisted and the Gospel can be refused, and this is so important for understanding the differences:  BECAUSE THE COMMITMENT OF OUR LIVES TO JESUS IS A COMMITMENT WE MAKE BY OUR CHOICE THAT REQUIRES THE WORK OF THE HOLY SPIRIT TO WHICH WE CAN SAY NO.  Now keep reading because the true Pelagian or Armininian is then compelled to argue that since getting saved is our choice, staying saved is our choice too.  Here is the rub among many modern American evangelicals.  We want salvation exclusively our choice but then we want God to keep what we have chosen.  Calvin believed as do I that a person can resist the Holy Spirit and refuse the Gospel but if that person is truly called and chosen by God known to the Father from before the foundation of the world, that person in God’s own time and God’s own way to God’s own glory will be saved from hell by God’s own grace and that which grace saves, grace keeps.  That which we do out of our own initiative is ours to start and ours to finish.  The beautiful balance that is at the heart of genuine Calvinism is proclaimed by Paul in Philippians, “work out your own salvation because it is God who is at work within you,” so that “the One who began a good work in you will bring it to completion at the Day of Jesus Christ.”

Here is the primary “rub” between Calvin and Arminius:  how sinful are we really?  Are we so sinful that there is within us nothing that cries out for God?  Are we dead in sin or are we just sick?  Calvin argued that we are totally sinful.  Arminius argued that we are not.  Second, is the initiative for salvation from God to us so that we are saved by Grace Alone through Faith Alone or  is the initiative for salvation from us to God so that we are saved by Grace through our choice.  Calvin argued that God comes to us to save us; Arminius argues that God comes to us but that it is up to us to come to God.  Thirdly, does God keep us by His grace so that He gives us what we need to persevere or are we kept by our own works the presence of which show that we are saved, the absence of which show that we aren’t and need to be saved again?  I may be wrong but I think that we are so caught up in our culture of self-directed and self-determined individualism that we want salvation to be our choice in our own time and in our own way, but then we want God to keep us after we have made the choice.  Do you know what that says?  It says that we see ourselves as wise enough to make decisions but not wise enough to keep them; or maybe it says that we are depraved even in the way we see our relationship with God because we want Him to do for us after we have done for us.  At the end of the day and at the end of the blog, it is simple:  It is either from Him and for Him or it is either from us and for us. Either He calls and converts or we call out to Him with the validity of our commitment being up to us.