Unraveling Calvinism: A Critical Examination of the 'T' in TULIP

Calvinism, a theological system that shapes the beliefs of many Christians today, begins with a doctrine that sets the stage for a fatalistic view of human nature and salvation: Total Depravity. The acronym T.U.L.I.P., which summarizes Calvinist doctrine, begins with this point and lays the foundation for the rest—Unconditional Election, Limited Atonement, Irresistible Grace, and Perseverance of the Saints. As the old Arabian proverb states, “Never let the camel get its nose under the tent, because the rest of the body will follow.” This proverb warns of allowing small, seemingly harmless actions or compromises because they can lead to larger, unintended consequences. The phrase is often used metaphorically to describe situations where minor issues or allowances, if unchecked, can lead to significant consequences or loss of control. Therefore, once Total Depravity is accepted, it’s easier to swallow the following doctrines. But what if the foundation is flawed?

Let’s take a closer look at the 'T' in T.U.L.I.P. and see how it stands up to biblical scrutiny, particularly by examining Genesis 3, the Law of First Mention, and the concepts of exegesis and hermeneutics.

The Foundation of Total Depravity

Total depravity teaches that after the Fall, man is so utterly corrupted by sin that he cannot choose or seek God on his own. It asserts that human beings, in their natural state, are incapable of doing anything truly good, including acknowledging their own sinfulness or seeking reconciliation with God. According to Calvinist theology, without God’s irresistible grace, man is doomed to remain spiritually dead and incapable of making moral decisions that align with God’s will (Sproul, 1996).

However, this view neglects a crucial aspect of the human experience: even a lost person—someone outside of Calvinism's "elect"—is capable of doing good. A lost person can display acts of kindness, compassion, or love, and these actions are recognized as good not only by other humans but also by God. Romans 2:14-15 affirms this, noting that

“14For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:15 Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another;)”

Here, Paul is acknowledging that those outside the covenant community can still do what is morally right. This raises a fundamental question: If a lost man can do good, even though he may not fully seek God, does this not challenge the premise of total depravity?

While Calvinism asserts that these acts of goodness are not ultimately righteous in God's eyes without faith, it is hard to deny that both God and fellow humans recognize acts of kindness or justice, even when performed by non-believers, as in the case of the Roman centurion Cornelius in Acts 10. Cornelius, though not yet a believer in Christ, is described as a "devout man who feared God" and "gave alms generously to the people and prayed continually to God" (Acts 10:2). God recognizes his good deeds and prayers, sending Peter to preach the gospel to him, ultimately leading to his salvation. Cornelius' story highlights that even those outside of the covenant community can do good works that God sees and values, undermining the Calvinist claim that all acts of non-believers are worthless in God's sight.

This inclusion further emphasizes how Cornelius, before even becoming a believer, did good that was acknowledged by God, challenging the Calvinist understanding of total depravity.

A Calvinist might affirm that non-believers can do good in a relative sense (i.e., good toward others), but they would argue that such acts are tainted by sin. However, as seen in Romans 2, these acts still align with God’s moral law, meaning they carry value.

Adam’s Accountability: A Flaw in Total Depravity

In Genesis 3:12, after God confronts Adam for eating the forbidden fruit, Adam says, "The woman whom thou gavest to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I did eat." At first glance, this might seem like Adam is simply deflecting blame, but notice what happens at the end of his statement: “…and I did eat.” Here, Adam does something significant—he acknowledges his own action. He admits that he ate from the tree, albeit after shifting some blame to Eve and God.

If we were to accept the Calvinist view of total depravity in its strictest sense, Adam, being fully corrupted by sin, would have been incapable of acknowledging any fault whatsoever. Yet, his conscience still functions to the degree that he admits his part in the act. This admission of guilt—though delayed—shows that even in his fallen state, Adam has the capacity for moral responsibility (Walton, 2001).

This observation challenges the idea that humans, after the Fall, are completely devoid of any good or moral awareness. Calvinism teaches that man cannot even admit his sin without divine intervention, but here, Adam’s conscience seems to function at least enough for him to acknowledge what he has done.

Man Knows Good and Evil

Later in Genesis 3:22, God says something remarkable: “And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil…” This statement alone refutes the Calvinist notion that humans are entirely incapable of discerning good from evil after the Fall. God Himself acknowledges that man now has the ability to distinguish between good and evil, which directly contradicts the claim that humans are totally depraved and unable to choose good or understand moral truth.

The implications of this verse are critical. While the Fall certainly corrupted human nature, it did not eradicate man’s ability to discern right from wrong. If humans are able to know good and evil, then the Calvinist doctrine of total depravity is overstated. Rather than being utterly incapable of moral reasoning or spiritual insight, fallen man still retains a conscience that enables him to recognize his actions and the distinction between good and evil (Hamilton, 1990).

Moreover, if God declares that humanity has acquired knowledge of both good and evil, this inherently means that even the "lost" individual has the capacity for recognizing and performing good deeds, just like Cornelius, or you and me when in our lost state. If someone knows what is good, they can indeed act in ways that reflect that knowledge, even if they do not have the full spiritual insight Calvinists claim is needed for salvation. This further undermines the concept that fallen humans are totally incapable of moral good outside of God's electing grace.

The Law of First Mention and Hermeneutics

In biblical interpretation, the Law of First Mention is a principle that suggests the first time a concept or word is introduced in Scripture, it holds foundational significance for understanding that concept throughout the Bible. In the case of sin and human nature, Genesis 3 provides the first mention of sin and its consequences.

A proper hermeneutical approach to Genesis 3, using sound exegesis—drawing meaning directly from the text—reveals that while humanity was affected by the Fall, the idea that humans are totally depraved and incapable of any good is not substantiated in this first mention. Adam’s acknowledgment of his actions and God’s declaration that humans now know good and evil must inform our understanding of human nature after the Fall. To take Calvinism's view of total depravity is to read more into the text than what it actually says (Grudem, 1994).

Furthermore, if we base our interpretation on the Law of First Mention, Genesis 3 does not support the Calvinist notion of total depravity. While it certainly shows the corrupting effect of sin, it also shows that humans retain moral awareness and the ability to recognize wrongdoing.

The Nose of the Camel: The Danger of Accepting the 'T'

The 'T' in T.U.L.I.P. opens the door for the rest of Calvinist theology to follow. Once you accept that humans are totally depraved, it logically leads to the idea that God must unconditionally elect some for salvation (U), that Christ’s atonement is limited to these elect (L), that grace is irresistible for those God chooses (I), and that those elected will persevere to the end (P). But if the 'T' is faulty—if humans are not totally depraved—then the entire theological system becomes questionable (Piper, 1991).

By allowing the “nose of the camel” (Total Depravity) into the tent, the rest of the camel (Unconditional Election, Limited Atonement, Irresistible Grace, Perseverance of the Saints) follows. But if we challenge the premise of total depravity, we have grounds to re-evaluate the entire system of Calvinism.

Conclusion

The opening salvo of Calvinist theology, Total Depravity, is based on an overreach in interpreting human nature after the Fall. John Calvin, heavily influenced by his Catholic upbringing and the writings of St. Augustine, the first major theologian to articulate predeterminism, built his doctrines on the foundation of Augustinian thought. Like much of Roman Catholic theology, Augustine’s views added layers to Scripture that were not explicitly there. This practice is contrary to the principle of exegesis (drawing meaning from the text) and leans toward eisegesis (reading into the text what is not present). Calvin followed in this tradition, which often led to theological interpretations that went beyond what Scripture clearly states. However, when Genesis 3 is examined through the lens of the Law of First Mention and proper hermeneutics, it shows that while humanity is indeed affected by sin, we retain a conscience, the ability to recognize good and evil, and some measure of accountability. Adam’s own admission of guilt and God’s declaration that man knows good and evil contradict the Calvinist claim that fallen humans are utterly incapable of moral reasoning.

Furthermore, the idea that even a lost man can do good challenges the heart of Calvinism’s doctrine of total depravity. Romans 2:14-15 supports the notion that non-believers are capable of aligning their actions with God’s law, even without direct revelation, and this goodness can be seen and acknowledged by both God and fellow humans.

By scrutinizing the foundation of Calvinism, we uncover serious flaws that suggest the need to rethink its subsequent doctrines. Total depravity, as Calvinism frames it, overstates the condition of humanity and opens the door to a deterministic view of salvation that may not align with the full biblical witness.

References:

• Sproul, R. C. (1996). Grace unknown: The heart of Reformed theology. Baker Books.

• Walton, J. H. (2001). Genesis: The NIV application commentary. Zondervan.

• Hamilton, V. P. (1990). The book of Genesis: Chapters 1–17. Eerdmans.

• Grudem, W. (1994). Systematic theology: An introduction to biblical doctrine. Zondervan.

• Piper, J. (1991). The pleasures of God: Meditations on God's delight in being God. Multnomah.

• King James Bible. (1769/2017). The Holy Bible, King James Version. Cambridge University Press. https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org

Extra:

Here’s a child’s video that tells a story about an old man in the desert who allows his camel to gradually enter his tent due to the camel's persistence, ultimately losing his place to sleep outside. The moral of the story is about not giving in to small compromises that can lead to bigger problems in the future. It advises against allowing negative influences or behaviors to take hold, emphasizing the importance of standing your ground and guarding against such influences.

https://youtu.be/9ZeELwaE7Xk?feature=shared