Along with Luther and Zwingli, John Calvin was one of the most influential figures of the Protestant Reformation. To this day, those within the Reformed tradition trace their lineage to him.

After spending most of his career in Geneva, Calvin died in 1564. After his death, Theodore Beza picked up the mantle and continued teaching the same doctrines as his mentor.

Around the year 1600, however, one of Beza’s students–Jacob Arminius–came to reject the Reformed view of predestination. Immediately, controversy spread across the region and several joined with Arminius. Then in 1610, forty-six followers of Arminius drew up their “Five Points,” known as the Remonstrants, and presented them for public approval.

These five points include:

1. Conditional Election — God elects based on foreseen faith.
2. Unlimited Atonement — Christ died for all people, though only true believers are saved.
3. Total Depravity — Humans are unable to please God or turn to him apart from the supernatural work of the Spirit.
4. Resistible Grace — God’s supernatural grace is necessary for one to come to saving faith, but that grace can be resisted.
5. Possible Perseverance — It’s not certain that believers will persevere in faith to the end.

The official Reformed response came from the Synod of Dort in 1618-1619. Roughly a hundred ministers composed a response to the five points. These five points eventually became known as the Five Points of Calvinism, though Calvin had long since died. The original document does not formulate the points with the acrostic TULIP. No one is sure when or where, but someone eventually conceived of the TULIP acrostic to summarize the five points. It has stuck ever since.

So what, then, were the five points responding to the Remonstrants?

T — Total Depravity

You’ll notice that the Calvinists agree with the Arminians at this point (Point 3 of the Remonstrants). They both recognized that man’s natural condition apart from any kind of gracious intervention leaves man utterly incapable of turning to the Lord in faith and repentance.

As Romans 8:7-8 declares, “For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God’s law; indeed, it cannot. Those who are in the flesh cannot please God.” Notice the moral inability of the person in the flesh.

Paul goes on to say to the believers, “You, however, are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if in fact the Spirit of God dwells in you.” That is to say, believers have the Spirit which now empowers them to submit to God.

Total depravity does not mean that people are as bad as they could possibly be. Rather it means every part of humanity has been corrupted by sin’s effects which makes one incapable of turning to Christ apart from supernatural intervention.

As Paul says in Ephesians 2:1, “You were dead in your trespasses and sins in which you once walked.” He says elsewhere, “The god of this age has blinded the minds of the unbelievers” (2 Cor 4:4). And elsewhere he affirms, “None is righteous, no, not one; no one understands; no one seeks for God” (Rom 3:10-11). Ezekiel the prophet indicates that unbelievers have a “heart of stone,” and that God must give them a “heart of flesh” (Ezek 36:26).

Those who reject this doctrine must assume that unbelievers are not “dead,” but merely “hindered.” Not “blinded,” but “visually impaired.” It’s not that they “cannot” please God, it’s just “difficult for them.” They don’t think their hearts are really made of “stone.” They’re just “a little stony.”

U — Unconditional Election

This point comes in response to Point 1 of the Remonstrants. Whereas the Arminians argued that God’s election was based on foreseen faith, the Calvinists argued that God’s election is based on his good will and pleasure. In other words, election is unconditional in that there was no future condition that someone had to meet in order for God to choose them.

As Paul remarks in Romans 9:11-12, “though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad—in order that God’s purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of him who calls—she was told, “The older will serve the younger.” Here, Paul indicates that God’s choice of Jacob over Esau was not based on anything he saw in him.

Paul goes on to say, “For he says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.” So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy” (Rom 9:15-16). It does not appear that some condition had to be met in order for God to elect someone unto salvation.

Elsewhere, Paul declares that God “chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. In love he predestined us for adoption to himself as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will, to the praise of his glorious grace” (Eph 1:4-6). Again, God’s choice is “according to the purpose of his will,” not foreseen faith.

Nor is God’s election of Christ, as those who hold to the corporate election view argue. Ephesians 1 clearly says that God “chose us in him” (“us” being the direct object, not “Christ”). He “predestined us for adoption” (Eph 1:5). And that “we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to the purpose of him who works all things according to the counsel of his will” (Eph 1:11). In other words, while some want to argue that God elected Christ, and therefore, everyone who trusts in Christ is now part of the elect, Scripture does not affirm this view. It teaches that God elects people unto salvation (Acts 13:48; Rom 8:29; Col. 3:12; 2 Thess 2:13; 2 Tim 2:10; Titus 1:1; 1 Pet 1:1).

L — Limited Atonement

This point is in response to Point 2 of the Remonstrants. And without a doubt, this point is the most controversial. So much so, that many will call themselves four-point Calvinists (Amyraldianism is the technical term).

Whereas the Arminians argued that Christ died to make salvation possible for all people, Calvinists argued that Christ’s death decisively saved the elect. As you can tell, Limited Atonement is a bit of a misnomer. Both sides limit the atonement in some sense. Arminians limit what the atonement actually accomplishes. It doesn’t completely save, but merely makes salvation possible. Calvinists, on the other hand, say that the cross doesn’t merely make salvation possible for everyone, but it actually and completely saves the elect.

For if someone wants to say that Jesus died for the sins of the entire world, they must deny that Jesus’ death actually saves, unless they want to affirm Universalism (the belief that everyone will be saved). For example, if Jesus’ death satisfied all the requirements to save the world, then Hitler and Stalin would be saved. So to avoid this conclusion, Arminians must limit what the cross actually accomplished.

Calvinists on the other hand affirm that Christ’s death purchased everything that was necessary for the elect’s salvation. When Jesus offered his blood as a “new covenant” offering (Luke 22:20), he secured all the new covenant promises which include among other things a regenerated heart and forgiveness of sins (Deut. 30:6; Jer 31:31-34; Ezek 36:24-25). That is to say, when Jesus died on the cross, he “ransomed people for God from every tribe and language and people and nation” (Rev 5:9). He didn’t merely make the ransom possible, his death WAS the ransom.

Biblically speaking, several texts point to Jesus dying to save his elect. As I just quoted, Revelation 5:9 indicates that Jesus ransomed people “from every tribe.” It does not say that he ransomed every tribe. Similarly, Mark 10:45 notes that Jesus “gave his life as a ransom for many.” Not all, but many. Likewise, Hebrews 9:28 notes that Christ came “to bear the sins of many.” The Suffering Servant text of Isaiah similarly proclaims that “he bore the sins of many” (Isa 53:12).

In John 10:15, Jesus proclaims, “I lay down my life for the sheep.” But then a little later when responding to the Jews, Jesus remarked, “but you do not believe because you are not among my sheep” (John 10:26). If Jesus died specifically for his sheep, but the unbelieving Jews weren’t among those sheep, then Jesus didn’t die for all people.

Later on in Jesus’ high priestly prayer, he prays, “I am not praying for the world but for those whom you have given me, for they are yours” (John 17:9). Under the old covenant, the high priest interceded only for the covenant community. The high priest didn’t pray for the Philistines or offer sacrifices to atone for the Philistines’ sins. The atonement and intercession was limited to the covenant community. Now that Jesus is the high priest of the new covenant, his priestly work is only for the new covenant community (i.e., believers).

We also read in Ephesians 5:25 that “Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her.” That is to say, Jesus laid down his life for his bride, not for every person without exception. Now we certainly affirm that God loves the entire world, and that we should freely offer the gospel to all. And that whoever repents and believes will experience salvation (John 3:16). But like any husband, Christ loves his own wife in a different way than all the other people out there.

Now I believe the Arminian has a valid case against this position due to the number of texts that indicate that Jesus died for “the whole world.” I will briefly respond to two texts. Though I must confess they deserve much more attention than I can give them here.

The first comes from 1 Timothy 2:6. There we read that Christ “gave himself as a ransom for all.” How does this fit within a Calvinistic framework? The first thing I’d say is that if Christ made a ransom payment for an individual, God’s just nature would require that he release that person from condemnation.

In other words, if Jesus paid the ransom price for that person’s sins, it would be unjust of God to then make that same person pay the price for his own sins a second time in hell. Therefore, if Jesus ransomed “all people without exception,” God’s justice would require that all people experience forgiveness of sins.

Obviously, I disagree with that position. I think a better interpretation is to say Jesus ransomed “all people without distinction.” Or to put it another way, Jesus ransomed people “from every tribe and language and nation” (Rev 5:9). For this text speaks of an actual ransom payment, not a potential one. And if an actual ransom transaction occurred, then those who were ransomed must be delivered from the bondage of sin. I think it makes the most sense, then, to say that Jesus ransomed “all without distinction.” He did not ransom “all without exception,” as that would result in Universalism.

Similarly, 1 John 2:2 states, “He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world.” Like the previous text, this one appears to affirm a universal atonement. But again, we must consider the meaning of the word propitiation. Theologically speaking, propitiation refers to the satisfaction of God’s wrath towards sin. If, then, propitiation was made for the sinner, God’s anger has been appeased towards the sin and forgiveness has been granted.

It would be unjust of God to make people pay for their sins if the payment was already made. After all, 1 John 2:2 doesn’t say he’s the potential propitiation, but that he is the actual propitiation. Therefore, I think we should interpret this text in a similar way as we did to 1 Timothy 2:6. Knowing that John was a Jew, he wanted to emphasize that Jesus’ death propitiated God’s wrath not just for Jewish people, but for people from all over the world–“from every tribe and language and people and nation” (Rev 5:9).

I — Irresistible Grace

In response to Point 4 of the Remonstrants, Calvinists declared that all God’s elect will irresistibly come to saving faith in Christ.

Romans 8:29-30 asserts, “For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified.”

Notice the unbreakable chain of events. Those who are predestined are called. And those who are called are justified. Meaning, whatever this calling is, it necessarily results in the elect’s justification which only comes by faith. In short, this calling irresistibly results in justifying faith for the predestined.

Paul speaks of this calling elsewhere in 1 Corinthians 1:23-24: “But we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles, but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God.”

For most of the world, the cross is folly. But for those who have received the calling, it’s good news! They can’t help but delight in it.

Similarly, John 6:37 states, “All that the father gives to me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out.” Who are the people that the Father gives to the Son? They’re the elect. And Jesus says that every last one of them will irresistibly come to him.

Irresistible grace doesn’t mean people won’t ever resist the Holy Spirit. People frequently do. What it means is that, at some point, the elect will come to Jesus by faith. It’s guaranteed.

P — Perseverance of the Saints

In response to Point 5 of the Remonstrants, Calvinists affirm that all true Christians will persevere to the end. Calvinists confidently assert this point because they believe God, not human free will, is the decisive factor in one’s salvation. If God is the one who brought them into the faith, he will keep them in it to the end.

Again, the Golden Chain of Romans 8:29-30 affirms perseverance. For according to Paul, “those whom he justified he also glorified.” Notice it’s God who is the decisive figure in perseverance. God will preserve his people to the end. If, however, the decisive factor in salvation is man’s free choice, then a believer could fall away from the faith and not be “glorified” in the end.

But as Jesus says of his sheep, “No one will snatch them out of the Father’s hand” (John 10:29). Or as Paul says, “He who began a good work in you will bring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ” (Phil 1:6). And he elsewhere proclaims that Jesus Christ “will sustain you to the end, guiltless in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ” (1 Cor 1:8-9).

Those who fall away from the faith, then, reveal that they were never genuinely born again in the first place. As John says, “They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us. But they went out, that it might become plain that they all are not of us.” (1 John 2:19).