The Absurdity of Calvinism

               If you’ve wondered why you haven’t received a Monday Musing for the past two weeks, it is because I took a break to visit and play during the holidays. So let me now return to our discussion on Calvinism. Perhaps it would be helpful at this point to outline the basic tenets of Calvinism. Fortunately, the doctrine of Calvinism has been conveniently summarized by the acronym TULIP, which stands for Total Hereditary Depravity, Unconditional Election, Limited Atonement, Irresistible Grace, and Perseverance of the Saints. Each of these five basic doctrines is logically based on the previous one. Therefore, if one falls, they all fall. Even the first one (T) has a logical precursor, though it is not revealed in the TULIP acronym. I’ll come back to that later, but first let me explain the TULIP points as briefly as possible so that we can all be on the same page as we discuss the general concepts. I have a pro-Calvinist book in front of me to help assure that I represent the ideas correctly.

Total Hereditary Depravity (or sometimes called “Total Inability”) says that man has lost all ability to will any spiritual good towards salvation. In other words, man has lost all ability of free will, at least in regard to his salvation. And since man has no ability to choose salvation, his “election” by God must therefore be unconditional. Salvation is not even based on faith, but is absolutely unconditional. God simply elects some people for salvation and some for eternal damnation based on his sovereign choice alone, without any consideration of an individual’s character, actions, or personal response to God’s call. And if that is true, then it logically follows that Jesus died only for those that God elected, since his death would be meaningless for the non-elect. Therefore, his atonement on the cross was not for everyone, but “limited” to those that God has chosen. Further, since it is impossible for anyone to will to choose salvation, and since salvation is completely unconditional, a person’s election must therefore be against their will. Thus, it is “irresistible.” The elect are as unable to reject their election as the non-elect are to choose it. Finally, it follows that there is nothing the saved person can ever do to be lost. The saints will “persevere” no matter what they do or don’t do, which is only logical since their salvation is unconditional to begin with. Thus, they are “once-saved-always-saved.”

Now, many Calvinists will passionately deny the logical consequences of their doctrine. For example, it seems perfectly logical that if man is “totally unable” to choose to respond favorably to God’s call, and if God’s election is irresistible, then man has no free will in spiritual matters. He cannot help but sin, and he cannot choose to be saved even when God offers it.  And if man has no free will, then how can God condemn him for doing what he cannot help? Unwilling to accept these consequences, most Calvinists will deny that Calvinism rejects the idea of man’s free will. Now, I do not wish to be unfair or to misrepresent the doctrine of Calvinism in any way, but it is difficult to see the logic in saying that a man is free to choose what he is unable to even will to choose, or that man is free to reject what is irresistible. If man is “totally unable” to even will to choose God’s offer of salvation, and if man’s election (or non-election) is both unconditional and irresistible, then where is there room for free will? How am I free to do what I am unable to do? It seems to be a logical absurdity. What would lead a person to believe in such a logical absurdity? It really goes back to a more fundamental foundation of Calvinism upon which the entire system is based, the precursor not revealed in TULIP that I mentioned earlier. It is the idea of the sovereignty of God. But we will have to save that for next week.

© 2008 Randy Hohf