Note: This is a lay discussion (I am not a theologian) of Calvinism in everyday language. "Mere" in the sense that these beliefs are what most Protestants agree upon, and do not get into more obscure corners of debate among Calvinists. This is meant as nothing more or less than me talking to myself, trying to summarize what I believe. The interested and motivated reader can find the complete works of St. Augustine and Calvin online. Works by Calvinist pastors and theologians are easy to find. Finding the specific scriptures to support these positions is a well-solved problem. I will not attempt to duplicate the solution. Scriptures to back up each of the five points can be found in Calvinist works such as The Five Points Of Calvinism (Steele, Thomas, and Quinn). At times, I have already written about "Calvinist" doctrines, even if they're not called that, and link to those articles rather than repeat myself.

What we call "Calvinism" ought to be called "true Christianity", and owes its name to an accident of history. The debate over what is true Christianity has been going on since the New Testament, and the issues which concern Calvinism would be more appropriately called "Augustinianism", since these issues had to be resolved in the time of St. Augustine. The same issues had to be re-resolved after the time of John Calvin, when Calvin's Reformed beliefs were challenged by Arminius, and Reformed theologians had to create a response. The name "Calvinism" for this response stuck, even though it is a doctrinal line that can be traced from Paul to Augustine to Calvin (and the Reformers). All the names and dates are not particularly important.

Calvinism is a set of definitions that pinpoint Christian beliefs on important issues. These are most typically expressed as an acronym: TULIP. This is the most popular expression of Calvinism, and although it is not necessarily the best, it is the most widely known. The acronym reminds us of five critical definitions of Christianity which set the Christian beliefs apart from other world beliefs. Without these definitions, "Christianity" is not Christian. The five points create a definition of "mere" Calvinism that is the central definition of what Christianity is, and how it differs from other belief systems. These five concise, orthogonal, and interlocking definitions have been honed over the centuries to present the essentials of Christian belief in the face of challenges. No one definition can be taken in isolation, because they support one another like a squad's stacked rifles. Remove any one definition, and the rest can't stand. Also, it's important to take these definitions in the larger Christian context, since they are not a complete theology themselves. We must remember that "God is love" and that he is omniscient.

TULIP

T - total depravity - definition: we can't save ourselves.

What makes Christianity different from other world religions and belief systems? The single most important belief is that mankind is not innately good by nature, but is fallen and innately depraved. Christians call this depravity the sin nature.

This is the one non-negotiable belief of Christianity. For Christianity to be Christianity, this belief must be present. All four of the other definitions uphold this belief and are based on it. Some who call themselves Christians do not believe in the sin nature of mankind. These beliefs are not Christian in any meaningful sense. They typically use the word "Christian", but have beliefs in line with eastern philosophy or humanism. What distinguishes true Christianity from all other world beliefs is the foundation of the sin nature of mankind.

I suppose I've only had one original thought, and that was when I began to frame world religions and philosophies by how they viewed mankind as good, and how they try to cope with the evidence to the contrary.

The "total" in "total depravity" means pervasiveness, not extent. This qualification tightens up the definition so that no one can think some people are good enough to save themselves, while others are not. I view "total" as a taint. No matter what we do, the taint of the sin nature is present. Even good acts are tainted. No one can escape the taint. No one can cleanse the taint by themselves. Only God can remove this taint for us.

Why is total depravity so important? I have written several pieces about why salvation by self-effort is not possible, and why the Christian view of salvation by grace is the only possible hope people have. See: Looking At Salvation By Works, Looking At Karma (the eastern view of salvation by works), and Why I Am A Calvinist (about total depravity). There is no way a reasonable person could look at the history of humanity and conclude that mankind is good, because there is no evidence to be found.

What does total depravity mean? See The Sin Nature.

For a non-Calvinist perspective, see also the discussion at the end of Lectures VI and VII of William James' Varieties of Religious Experience, particularly his conclusion at the end: "The completest religions would therefore seem to be those in which the pessimistic elements are best developed." James' "healthy-minded" religions are those which assume mankind is good, and they must cope with the stark fact of evil. James is quite correct to conclude that Buddhism (at least, in some forms) and Christianity are the only two religions which admit that people have an evil nature. (At least, they are the only two I have ever found.) Of these two, only the grace of Christianity can do anything about the evil, since Buddhism is a religion of salvation by self-effort.

U - unconditional election - definition: God saves us even though we can't save ourselves.

Since we have total depravity, we can't save ourselves. If we are to be saved, we must be saved by God. We can't earn salvation by self-effort. Thus anyone who is saved is chosen by God. That's what election means: God chose us for salvation without our having to do anything to earn it.

If we had to save ourselves through some work of self-effort, we'd be hopeless and in the same position as other religious seekers who are attempting to get to God through their own works. If any part of salvation depends on our works, even our belief, then we're hopeless. All other world religions have proven that, because no one has ever been able to pay the price for their sin by these religions.

This particular definition is difficult for people to accept. The belief is challenging to the intellect, although it has little practical consequence. Whether we "accept Jesus" and are saved (as popular evangelism phrases it), versus God saving those who would be inclined to accept Jesus, the end result is the same. Election can't be understood without also considering God's complete omniscience and love. God is not going to elect those who do not want to be saved, and God is not going to pass over those who do.

The definition is meant to be reassuring and affirm God's sovereignty. The alternative is potential universal salvation (a position typically taken by non-Calvinists), where God offers his free gift of grace to all, and impotently stands by, unable to save those to whom grace was offered but who refused it. This is not the God of the Bible.

L - limited atonement - definition: salvation is not universal.

All orthodox, Bible-believing Christians (not just Calvinists) should believe this. It's simply saying that Christ's atonement is only for those who will be saved, not for everyone. If limited atonement is not true, then there is no need for a salvation experience, conversion, repentance, or any other Biblical doctrine, because everyone is already saved.

The alternative to limited atonement is universalism, which says all are saved regardless of their beliefs.

The main problem with universalism is that it has no sense of justice: all are saved, no matter how good or bad they are, and regardless of whether they own up to their sins or not. This is extremely similar to Hinduism, in which evil is said to not actually exist, and therefore no one is accountable for evil because it is an illusion. Love without any sense of justice is unpalatable to a reasonable person.

I - irresistible calling - definition: salvation can't be stopped.

This definition is simply saying that those who are going to be saved can't be thwarted. There is no way that the devil, or other people, or anything else will stop God's salvation from happening. This is an example of the sovereignty of God.

P - perseverance - definition: salvation can't be lost.

Perseverance is saying that once someone is saved, that salvation can't be lost. This is a necessary consequence of being unconditionally elected. After all, if we had no part in our being chosen by God, we can have no part in whether we keep or lose our standing before God after the choice is made. Salvation is a covenant between God and Jesus, and we as sinners are adopted into this covenant when we are saved. What would the saved person "lose"? Can an adopted child can lose the family into which the child was adopted? This definition makes the question of eternal security go away, since there is nothing that can be lost.

The definition has two equal sides: (1) If you are saved, you will remain saved forever and no lose your salvation. (2) If you are saved, you will continue to grow closer to Jesus.

The necessity of this definition is obvious when looking at modern "revival" Christianity. Modern revivalism tends to view salvation as a one-time decision which a person makes, typically worded as a "decision for Jesus". Evangelists like Billy Graham and Greg Laurie share the gospel message, and encourage people to make this decision, which is perfectly fine, because the gospel must be heard. But salvation is rarely as simple as a one-time decision. Evangelistic messages may only be the start of salvation. Thus it's hard to know if a one-time decision is truly the start of salvation, or the result of some other factor, such as an emotional appeal or peer pressure. Only if the person who made the decision continues along the path of salvation will the decision be proven as true salvation. Many make a decision for other reasons (sometimes called a "false profession"), and are not ever truly saved. It is not that these people lose salvation, but that they never truly understood it.

Because one-time decisions are ineffective as true indications of salvation, and because many who make these decisions don't follow up on them, revivalism is sometimes called easy-believing-ism. This term emphasizes the fact that belief is easy, but it is not true salvation.

How do we know if we're saved? The evidence of true salvation is repentance. We recognize the sinful condition mankind is in (and good evangelic preaching helps with this), decide to turn from our sins, and trust in the grace offered by Jesus Christ. As a result of our salvation, we are drawn closer and closer to Christ.

What is the Bible? The Bible is a legal document detailing the relationship between God and mankind. The Bible is an unbreakable legal contract between God and Jesus. It's also your invitation to become part of this contract by admitting your need for Jesus as the atonement for your sins, and accepting the contract by faith.

This is easy to miss, and part of the reason is the rather random arrangement of books in Protestant Bibles. The 66 books are arranged accidentally, a product of history that often arranged books to fit on scrolls. I think it would be more helpful to publish Bibles with the books in an order which makes the logical argument of the Bible more coherent.

My arrangement would be something like this. This is a cursory overview, and would be an interesting full-length book.

Hebrews: The covenant. This is a detailed legal covenant which tells what Jesus has done for us. The words "covenant" and "testament" are legal words similar to our modern "contract". It is a legally binding document.

Romans: Commentary on the covenant. Hebrews is difficult to understand without a strong background in Jewish religious thought. The book of Romans is a commentary on the covenant written by Paul, who was both a Jewish Rabbi and also trained in the Greek and Roman thought which became the bedrock of Occidental civilization.

The Gospels: Character reference for Jesus. Who is Jesus, and why is he the one able to make this covenant? The four Gospels explain this in detail, from four different perspectives. Think of these as character witnesses establishing who Jesus is. Mark's Gospel is a documentary-style overview. Luke's Gospel is sociological, showing how Jesus impacted people's individual lives. (The Gospel of Luke is even more remarkable, because it was written at a time when concern for individual lives of ordinary people did not appear in writing. Luke presages Wordsworth by many centuries.) Matthew's Gospel (which is the hardest for us to understand, outside of the Sermon on the Mount) is from a Jewish perspective. John's Gospel is the most mystical and spiritual, explaining an aspect of Jesus the other three do not. Taken together, these paint a picture of who Jesus is and why we should believe in the covenant.

The letters: Explanation and consequences of the covenant. Romans by itself is not a complete commentary on the covenant, so Paul wrote additional riders to attach to his commentary as different situations came up. Other writers also contributed letters. The letters also show what is proper interpretation of the covenant and what isn't, including contrasting the true covenant with "Judaizers" who wanted to add to the covenant, and very early gnostic beliefs.

The Old Testament: Shows why the covenant between God and Jesus was necessary. The first, or "old", covenant was through the law. Romans discusses the law, and why it is necessary but insufficient for salvation. Through the Old Testament, we see exactly why the law wasn't sufficient, and why a savior was required.

The Revelation: The end result of the covenant, showing why it is superior. The results of the new covenant at the end of Revelation are much better than even the perfect creation in Genesis.

Finally, this is merely an introduction which tries to explain Calvinism in an understandable, non-technical way. I hope this is the beginning of your exploration, just a toe in the water.

A good place to start exploring true Christianity is The Five Points of Calvinism, a book with extensive scripture references and bibliographical information. The best study Bible for learning correct Christian doctrine is the Reformation Study Bible from Ligonier Ministries (find it here).

Additional Note: The most approachable entre to the thought of Arthur Schopenhauer is probably the Penguin Classic Essays and Aphorisms, rendered into digestible English by translator R. J. Hollingdale from an original German language that doesn't easily admit it.

In the chapter "On Religion", Schopenhauer (who calls Calvinism "Augistinianism", and Hindiusm "Brahaminism") makes a cogent case against his perception of Calvinism. When you read this chapter, do you see how Schopenhauer misses the point? Many others have missed the point in the same way.

Calvinism is not a complete Christian expression per se, and can't be taken out of the larger Christian context of God's love, salvation (soteria and shalom), and hope. Calvinism is a set of definitions that helps us understand what the Christian faith is, and is not. What Calvinism does is accept the bulk of orthodox Christian beliefs, and clarify definitions in five areas that have, historically and today, caused confusion. Calvinism makes little sense when taken out of the greater context of the salvation message.

I have no idea how well Schopenhauer understood the total implications of Hindu philosophy, nor how much of his reaction to Christianity was to the organized church of his day versus the actual teachings of the Bible. But he prefers Hindiusm to Calvinism. Hinduism is hopelessness in religious form: an endless slog through a universe where everything we perceive is unreal, but our response to that unreality through our self-effort towards extinguishing the spark of our lives determines the life to come, and the best we can hope for the future is total destruction of our individuality as we are swallowed back into the universal Self. How can this compare to God's love for us, where he chose us to be saved and made whole?