Executive Summary

This white paper examines the theological systems of Calvinism and Arminianism, particularly their classical formulations—TULIP and its Arminian counterpart—through the lens of biblical fidelity to the Ten Commandments. The aim is to assess whether these doctrines uphold or undermine the divine moral order revealed in Exodus 20, emphasizing both theological coherence and ethical consequence. The analysis is conducted from a Biblicist standpoint—that is, Scripture as the final and sufficient authority, interpreted by Scripture itself without dependence on post-biblical systems.

I. Introduction

Calvinism and Arminianism both claim fidelity to Scripture yet diverge sharply on divine sovereignty and human freedom. The debate is typically conducted in the realm of soteriology, but few studies consider its moral dimension—that is, how each system aligns with or contradicts the moral law summarized in the Ten Commandments.

This paper contends that both systems contain elements inconsistent with the commandments—one through deterministic fatalism that risks excusing sin and moral responsibility, and the other through synergistic presumption that risks self-righteousness and idolatry of human will. The biblicist critique seeks to restore harmony between doctrine and obedience.

II. The Ten Commandments as Theological Foundation

The Ten Commandments are not merely moral imperatives but reveal the character of God and the structure of covenantal relationship. They divide broadly into duties to God (Commandments 1–4) and duties to man (5–10), forming the basis for love of God and neighbor (Matthew 22:37–40).

Any theology that distorts the relationship between God’s sovereignty, human agency, and moral responsibility risks violating one or more commandments, especially:

The First Commandment (exclusive worship of the true God), The Third Commandment (misrepresenting God’s name or character), The Sixth Commandment (denying moral culpability in human acts), The Ninth Commandment (bearing false theological witness about God).

III. Calvinism’s TULIP Examined Biblically and Morally

1. Total Depravity and the First Commandment

Calvinism’s doctrine of total depravity asserts that man is utterly incapable of any good apart from divine regeneration. While Scripture affirms man’s fallen nature (Romans 3:23), Calvinism often overextends this by implying moral inability even to respond to God’s call, which may diminish personal accountability and effectively excuse unbelief.

Violation: This risks idolatry of despair—substituting divine determinism for personal repentance (cf. Ezekiel 18:30–32).

2. Unconditional Election and the Third Commandment

Unconditional election asserts God’s eternal choice of some individuals to salvation regardless of foreseen faith. While divine election is biblical (Ephesians 1:4–5), Calvinism’s unconditional model risks portraying God as arbitrary or unjust, contrary to His revealed character (Deuteronomy 32:4).

Violation: Misrepresenting God’s nature misuses His name (Exodus 20:7), effectively taking His name “in vain” by attributing to Him moral partiality.

3. Limited Atonement and the Second Commandment

The restriction of Christ’s atoning work to the elect alone is a theological construct unsupported by the clear teaching that Christ died for the sins of the whole world (1 John 2:2).

Violation: This may fashion a theological “idol” of a partial Christ—a God remade in systematic image rather than scriptural likeness (Exodus 20:4).

4. Irresistible Grace and the Fifth Commandment

By portraying human response as merely the effect of divine compulsion, Calvinism may undermine the parental analogy of voluntary honor and obedience central to the Fifth Commandment.

Violation: It dissolves the moral reciprocity embedded in covenant relationships—God calls, man answers (Isaiah 1:18–20).

5. Perseverance of the Saints and the Seventh and Ninth Commandments

While assurance of salvation is biblical, Calvinism’s perseverance doctrine can degenerate into presumptive security that excuses sin or denies falling away (Hebrews 6:4–6).

Violation: This risks bearing false witness about one’s spiritual state and committing spiritual “adultery” by divorcing faith from obedience (James 2:14–20).

IV. Arminianism’s Counterpoints Examined Biblically and Morally

1. Partial Depravity and the First Commandment

Arminianism maintains that human will retains the ability to choose God with prevenient grace. This elevates human autonomy dangerously close to idolatry of will (Jeremiah 17:9).

Violation: The First Commandment forbids exalting the creature’s power over the Creator’s sovereignty.

2. Conditional Election and the Second Commandment

Conditional election bases God’s choice on foreseen human decision. This anthropocentric model risks recasting God in man’s image, violating the command against graven images (Romans 9:16).

Violation: Making divine decree dependent on human foresight inverts the Creator-creature order.

3. Universal Atonement and the Third Commandment

While correctly affirming that Christ died for all, Arminianism often interprets this as universal potential rather than accomplished provision, thereby diminishing the power of the atonement.

Violation: It may trivialize the Name and Work of Christ, diminishing divine efficacy.

4. Resistible Grace and the Fifth Commandment

By asserting man’s ability to reject divine grace, Arminianism parallels the disobedient child’s rejection of parental authority. While Scripture affirms human resistance (Acts 7:51), the moral danger lies in normalizing rebellion.

Violation: It sanctifies disobedience rather than repentance.

5. Conditional Security and the Tenth Commandment

The Arminian doctrine that believers may fall from grace risks continual anxiety and covetous craving for assurance, contrary to the rest promised in Christ.

Violation: It fosters spiritual covetousness and lack of contentment in divine mercy.

V. Comparative Moral Matrix

Commandment

Calvinist Distortion

Arminian Distortion

Biblicist Correction

1. No other gods

Fatalistic worship of decree

Idolatry of will

Worship God as both sovereign and just

2. No images

Abstract, partial Christ

Anthropocentric God

Accept full biblical revelation of God’s nature

3. Name not in vain

Misrepresents divine justice

Diminishes divine power

Speak of God as revealed in Scripture

4. Keep Sabbath

Grace without rest

Work without trust

Rest in completed redemption

5. Honor authority

Denies moral reciprocity

Sanctifies rebellion

Balance authority and response

6–10. Human ethics

Excuses sin by predestination

Denies assurance by self-effort

Uphold moral accountability with grace

VI. The Biblicist Alternative

The biblicist position affirms:

Total responsibility (Romans 14:12), Universal provision (John 3:16), Conditional relationship (John 15:10), Assured outcome through perseverance (Matthew 24:13), Moral coherence with God’s commandments.

Salvation is neither monergistic fatalism nor synergistic negotiation, but covenantal participation: God initiates, man responds, and both uphold relationship under the moral law.

VII. Conclusion

When judged against the Ten Commandments, both Calvinism’s TULIP and Arminianism’s counterpoints fall short of a fully biblical morality. Calvinism risks moral fatalism; Arminianism risks moral presumption. The Biblicist approach restores the balance—God’s sovereignty upheld without injustice, human freedom affirmed without idolatry.

VIII. References

Exodus 20; Deuteronomy 5 Ezekiel 18; Romans 9–11; John 3, 6, 15 Hebrews 6, 10; James 2; 1 John 2 Augustine, On Grace and Free Will Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion Arminius, Declaration of Sentiments