Martin Wickens

Read Part 1 here – Book Review – “Against Calvinism” – Part 1

In chapter 3 of Olson’s book he works his way through the TULIP, the acrostic which summarizes the main tenats of Calvinism.

In this post, I want to share a few quotes from the book and offer a few thoughts in connection with this teaching. In later posts, I’ll highlight the other letters in the acrostic. This post will be significantly longer as it introduces what I believe to be the foundational truths upon which the whole edifice of Calvinism stands.

The T.U.L.I.P.

In this chapter Olson also deals with the difference between being reformed and calvinistic, one does not always mean the other. But he does make the statement after anaylysing TULIP in this chapter that,

“The sketch of garden-variety or mere Calvinism given above focused on an ideal type of Calvinism shared by many Calvinists, but not all. All real Calvinists look to TULIP as a relatively accurate description of their soteriology, but some reject one point (always “L”), and some who accept all five points apply them to practices such as evangelism in different ways.”

So, not all reformed adherents are Calvinists, and vice-versa. However, most, if not all, see the usefulness of the acrostic even when they reject one or more points.

T – Total Depravity

Olson defines it this way,

“…it means that every part of every human person (except Jesus Christ, of course) is infected and so affected by sin that he or she is utterly helpless to please God before being regenerated (born again) by the Spirit of God.”

But this is not someone against Calvinism dreaming a definition up, misunderstanding it, or creating a strawman to pull down. His understanding comes directly from Calvin himself,

““the whole [of every] man is overwhelmed—as by a deluge—from head to foot, so that no part is immune from sin and all that proceeds from him is to be imputed to sin. As Paul says, all turnings of the thoughts … are enmities against God … and therefore death.”

Sproul, one of the most widely accepted authorities on Calvinism concurs,

“Man is incapable of elevating himself to the good without the work of God’s grace within. We can no more return ourselves to God than an empty vessel can refill itself with water.”

The rest of the tulip, the whole of Calvinism, rests heavily on this teaching, so it is worth focusing on for a time.

Olson makes this clear,

“This account of the human condition is important to keep in mind because it is why Calvinists argue that no one can be saved without unconditional election and irresistible grace.”

Olson points out that Calvinists do accept the reality of “civil virtue”, the outward conformity to the law which may appear good, but in the eyes of God still is not.

Now, we may seem to swerve away from the subject of Total Depravity for a moment, but we will work our way back. Stick with me.

Disagreement within Calvinism – Supra or Infra?

In discussing some of the disagreements and variation with Calvinism (5 pointers, 3 pointers, 2 pointers etc), Olson goes into what he calls the “oldest and deepest division among Calvinists”. Having introduced the background to it, he boils the issue down to this question,

“Did God decree the election and reprobation of persons in light of the fall or prior to and not in light of it?”

The “supralapsarians” argued that God’s “first and foremost decree was to save some persons yet to be created and damn others…”

The “infralapsarians” in contrast argued that “God decreed to create and allow the fall (which all agree he actually foreordained!) first and only then decreed to elect some fallen persons to salvation and predestine others to damnation.”

Essentially, infraplapsarians focus on God allowing the fall and providing salvation. Whereas supralapsarianism on God ordaining the fall, and then creating people to be either condemned or saved according to His choice.

The difference is drawn by deciding on what order you believe God ordained things to happen (not in a chronological sequence, but logical).

If this all seems to be splitting hairs and overly complicated, then do not worry. It seems the Synod of Dort in 1618/1619 felt the same way as they decided to allow for both views to be acceptable.

Note, one of the foremost Calvinists in modern times, Boettner sides with supralapsarianism. Another modern leader within Calvinism, Sproul, however, speaks out against it as being hyper-calvinism and even anti-calvinism. Why? Because in his estimation it makes God the author of sin.

Does it Matter?

Though the issue of which order God decreed certain things is endlessly discussed within Calvinism, does it ultimately matter to those outside of it?

Whether God decreed for the fall first or decreed to save some first, ultimately the issue of God soveriengly allowing someone to be born in “total depravity” is a problem.

In his book, Chosen by God, Sproul describes sovereignty in absolute terms,

“If there is one single molecule in this universe running around loose, totally free of God’s sovereignty, then we have no guarantee that a single promise of God will ever be fulfilled.… Maybe that one molecule will be the thing that prevents Christ from returning.”

Whether supra- or infra-, neither seem to really absolve God from being the author of sin. Of course, this is strongly denied by the majority of Calvinists who argue that God allowing sin and causing sin are two different things. But there are those who have no issue with describing God as doing more than simply permitting sin.

Consider the implications of John Piper’s position shared by Olson here:

“Another Calvinist who does not think the language of God’s merely permitting sin and evil is strong enough to do justice to God’s sovereignty is John Piper. While he does not reject the language of permission, he often goes beyond it in explaining God’s role in disasters, evil, and even sin. In a sermon published at his website soon after the terrorist attacks on New York and Washington, D.C., on September 11, 2001, Piper rejected mere permission explanations of God’s role and affirmed that, in some sense, God “designed,” “ordained,” and “governed” those events. During a sermon preached to a youth conference in 2005 he emphasized God’s absolute sovereignty over all things and said, “Even a ‘dirty bomb’ that levels Minneapolis would be from God.”

Lastly, before we tie things together, consider one final point in relation to God’s sovereignty, according to Calvinists, and Total Depravity.

An influential voice among Calvinists is Herman Hoeksema (1886-1965). According to Sermon Audio he is “one of the founding “fathers” of the Protestant Reformed Churches in America.” He argued that open invitations to salvation violates the doctrine of God’s sovereignty. Why? How can a man accept an invitation if God has not drawn him? And to make an offer that God Himself does not make is to go against God’s will, His sovereignty.

Total Depravity and the Character of God

So, if we follow the Calvinist’s definitions of sovereignty and Total depravity we are left with this: God decrees or at least permits sin, a person according to that decree or permission is born under total depravity, and unless they are one of the few elected, they can never repent, never be saved, and only have eternity in hell in their future. Basically, they are born only to be condemned.

Many will argue with this. However, if not a single molecule, according to Sproul, can act independently, then how can a human being act independently to choose or reject God? If they have no choice in being born, no choice but to sin, and no choice to ever repent, then who is to be held accountable for their actions?

With this all in mind. What do we do with 1 John 4:16 that declares God is love? With what definition of love can we imagine a God that would create someone for the singular intention of condemning them for all eternity the fires of Hell?

To find consistency throughout the Bible and to allow for the true balance of God’s perfections, there must be another definition of total depravity that explains the sinner’s condition before coming to Christ. And there is. I will delve into that in the next article in this series.

Throughout this portion of the book, Olson maintains a gracious spirit, even when strongly speaking out against a teaching he believes wrongly impugns the character of God. He is meticulous with detailing his sources and establishing his point. While Olson summarizes the points before returning later in the book to refute them, I am tying things more closely together for the purposes of this lengthy book review.