_{The video above is a podcast style conversation discussing the papers claims that the TULIP as presented by Calvinist and Reformed soteriology’s are interdependent components of one central truth statement and are not meant to stand as independent claims.}

Introduction

Reformed soteriology, the doctrine of salvation, is summarized by the acronym TULIP: Total Depravity (T), Unconditional Election (U), Limited Atonement (L), Irresistible Grace (I), and Perseverance of the Saints (P). Developed in the 20th century to distill the Canons of Dort’s (1618–1619) response to Arminianism, TULIP reflects the ordo salutis—the logical order of salvation, from election to glorification. This paper defends two positions: (1) One cannot affirm a portion of TULIP without embracing the whole, as its points form a singular truth claim within the Reformed ordo salutis; and (2) Selective affirmation rejects Calvinism entirely, rendering the system incoherent.

Position 1: TULIP as a Unified Truth Claim, Not Independent Assertions

TULIP is not a set of detachable doctrines but a narrative framework mirroring the ordo salutis, the logical sequence of God’s saving work. Total Depravity establishes humanity’s inability to respond to God without divine initiative (John 6:44), necessitating Unconditional Election—God’s sovereign choice independent of foreseen merit. This election demands Limited Atonement, as Christ’s redemptive work is particular and efficacious for the elect (Hebrews 9:28), ensuring its sufficiency without universal inefficiency. Irresistible Grace applies this atonement, overcoming depravity, while Perseverance of the Saints guarantees the elect’s endurance, grounded in God’s decree.

This sequence forms a single truth claim: salvation is monergistic, God’s work alone, contrasting Arminian synergism. The five points “all logically go together,” forming a cohesive system where severing one link unravels the chain. TULIP, though a pedagogical tool, presupposes this unity, as seen in Romans 8:29–30, where predestination flows to glorification. Some cite texts like John 3:16 to suggest universal atonement, but Reformed theology interprets these within God’s sovereign election (Ephesians 1:4–5), ensuring TULIP’s coherence. Partial endorsement misrepresents this system, treating symptoms (e.g., assurance) without the sovereign cause. Having established TULIP’s unity, we now turn to why partial affirmation rejects Calvinism itself.

Position 2: Selective Affirmation Constitutes Rejection of Calvinism

Isolating TULIP points fragments the system and rejects Calvinism, as the doctrines’ mutual implications expose contradictions in partial schemes. Consider “four-point Calvinism,” which often rejects Limited Atonement. If Total Depravity renders humans incapable of faith, and Unconditional Election selects some, then Irresistible Grace must apply a particular atonement; otherwise, Christ’s death becomes hypothetical, undermining divine efficacy. This “reduces to this proposition: Man is incapable of choosing Christ, but at the same time he is capable,” a self-defeating stance. Some argue rejecting Limited Atonement allows a broader atonement while remaining Reformed, but this implies a fallible grace, aligning with Arminianism’s hypothetical universalism.

Affirming only Election and Perseverance without Limited Atonement or Irresistible Grace collapses into universalism or Pelagianism, implying resistible grace that contradicts Depravity. It is impossible to divide TULIP without the structure collapsing, leaving adherents as “no-point Calvinists.” The Synod of Dort treated deviations as threats to the gospel, excommunicating partial adherents. Modern partial Calvinists echo the Remonstrants’ errors, prioritizing individual tenets over systemic fidelity, nullifying Calvinism’s monergistic core.

Conclusion

TULIP’s elegance lies in its unity: a mnemonic unveiling the ordo salutis as one sovereign act of grace. Affirming portions treats interdependent truths as modular, while selective endorsement—exemplified in four-point schemes—exposes fatal inconsistencies, equating to Calvinism’s denial. While Calvinism encompasses broader doctrines like union with Christ, TULIP remains its soteriological core, as affirmed by Dort and Reformed confessions. As Ephesians 1:3–14 weaves election, atonement, and sealing into undivided praise, so must we uphold soteriology’s seamless garment, lest we unravel the gospel’s coherence for a patchwork of human preference.

References

Calvin, J. (1559). Institutes of the Christian Religion (Book III, Chapters 21–24).

Canons of Dort (1619). The Canons and Decrees of the Synod of Dort.

Banner of Truth. (2003). The Inconsistency of Four-Point Calvinism.

A Puritan’s Mind. (n.d.). Ordo Salutis – The Order of Salvation.

Heidelblog. (n.d.). TULIP and the Doctrines of Grace.

Ligonier Ministries. (2017). TULIP and Reformed Theology: An Introduction.

Nick Voss. (2012). Men Who Think They Are Four-Point Calvinists Are Actually No-Point Calvinists.

Reformed Journal. (2011). The Problem with TULIP.

The Two Cities. (2013). TULIP as Narrative.

What Does the Word Say. (2020). TULIP.