LOTUS: A Free Grace Response to TULIP

by Daniel Weierbach, J Morgan Arnold, Roger Fankhauser

Endorsed by Dr Charlie Bing, Dr Fred Chay, Dr Steven Cook, and Jeremy Mikkelsen.

If the resurrection is true, and the holy Scriptures are God's special revelation to mankind, then we would do well to understand what the Creator of the cosmos has to say to the best of our ability. And one of the greatest things we must understand is how to receive eternal life.

Unfortunately, there are many people who have made the Gospel message complicated, full of works and self-righteousness, and only available to a select group of people who God supposedly "elected" before life began. This teaching is commonly understood by the Calvinist acronym "TULIP."

While much has been written against the Calvinist TULIP framework, " A Free Grace Response to TULIP" is Daniel's attempt to articulate a Free Grace acronym that counters TULIP in a sequential, point-by-point order. This brings Soteriology back to a simple faith-alone message, for whosoever believeth, "according to the Scriptures."

In a collaborated effort to advance this Biblical teaching, noted pastors, and theologians have contributed chapters in this book. Finally, we don't have to settle for the Arminian DAISY or the Calvinist TULIP, there is a system and acronym that fits what most people truly believe. And that acronym is LOTUS.

303 pages, Kindle Edition

Published February 1, 2024

Reviews

[Davey Ermold · Rating 2 out of 5]

I rarely review books beyond giving them a certain number of stars, let alone offer a review this long. However, since I'm only one- to two-degrees separated from the author or other contributors, I wanted to be a little more thorough with why I gave this book a generous two stars.

I’d like to start with two positive remarks.

First, when it comes to matters of agreement. I agree with Weierbach when it comes to the ordo salutis, particularly the so-called “logical order” of regeneration and faith. I hold that belief must and does precede regeneration, for many of the reasons that Weierbach lists (and others). I believe that there are other, sufficient ways of explaining how a spiritually-dead person can believe in Jesus. I do disagree, however, over his discussion on p. 117, seeming to agree with Sproul that faith preceding regeneration is a sina qua non of dispensationalism. It is not. Dispensationalism is a hermeneutical system that has an immediate impact on eschatology, not soteriology.

Also, I am a steadfast proponent of the “S” of LOTUS (i.e., Security of the Saints). I deny Perseverance of the Saints as typically presented by Calvinist soteriology. Jody Dillow’s book, “The Reign of the Servant Kings” (the title when I first read it, now published as “Final Destiny”) presents an excellent, passage-by-passage dismantling of this notion that a “true” believer will necessarily and inevitably persevere in the faith until death. Thus, I note from the outset that there are areas of agreement between Weierbach and me. I evaluate from a theologically-friendly position!

Second, I unequivocally support Weierbach in his effort to codify the concept of LOTUS in writing. As someone who has somewhat of a piecemeal theology himself (i.e., Calvinistic insofar as TULI is concerned, Free Grace when it comes to Security of the Saints; staunchly premillennial and pretibulational, yet seeing far more unity than disunity than the typical dispensationalist), who am I to deny or decry Weierbach the opportunity to present his view as he sees fit? Not a single one of us will have a perfect theology, and we ought to encourage one another to develop an ever-deepening grasp on the Word of God!

With that, we must now attend to the significant reasons why I don’t believe this book is successful in what it sets out to do.

1. First and foremost, Weierbach introduces an extremely questionable take on the Gospel on p. 100: “This reveals that the condemnation of an unsaved person is not due to a sin problem, but rather a belief problem. According to [John 3:36], in order for one to have everlasting life they must ‘believe.’ Therefore, condemnation is not because of sin, but condemnation is because of unbelief.” Belief is not what makes a person righteous before God. Belief is the agency by/through which righteousness is imputed to our accounts. It seems as though Weierbach hasn’t thought through all the implications of his statement.

2. Second, Weierbach holds Calvinists to a standard that he himself does not hold. While he chastises Calvinists for poorly defining terms, or not doing so at all, Weierbach does the exact same thing at critical junctures. What does it mean that humans are “responsible” to God (p. 33)? What does Weierbach mean when he talks about “free will” as a given (e.g., p. 44)? Libertarian free will? Libertine free will? Other? He criticizes Calvinists “who are so zealous of TULIP. . . that they go so far as to deny free will even exists” (p. 112). Weierbach hasn’t even defined the term (let alone explain what Calvinists actually believe), and yet he attempts to land fatal blows against a straw man!

Weierbach also criticizes Calvinists for needing to clarify or more precisely define what the individual points of TULIP mean: “A major problem with the Calvinist tenet of Total Depravity is that the term. . . does not accurately convey what is meany by the T in TULIP” (p. 29). In contrasting the L in LOTUS, he writes: “This term is clear and means exactly what it says. . .” (p. 40) Yet, strikingly, when it comes time to describe unlimited grace, he writes: “I will admit upfront, this is my least favorite term in the LOTUS acronym, because if it is not properly understood, it can lead to a false idea and mischaracterization of God and salvation” (p. 125). He then goes on to discuss what it does not mean (pp. 125-126). He doesn’t hold himself to the same standard by which he criticizes the Calvinist!

As a third example, Weierbach regularly decries the “philosophy” of Calvinism, and how Calvinists are more dependent upon their philosophy than the Word of God. Strikingly, Weierbach is just as guilty (perhaps more so)! On pp. 42-43, he submits a list of prooftexts (which he equally decries when the Calvinist supposedly uses them), seeing how a “man may choose not to believe.” However, when he presents his list of prooftexts, not a single one of them mentions a choice! It is his philosophical, hermeneutical assumption on Weierbach’s part that Jesus’ commands to believe necessarily result in the free will to choose: “we understand Jesus not only reveals man is not believing because their own free will, but also that He is commanding and seeking men to believe” (p. 44). The criticism was levied above how these words not only lack a definition, but they are taken as a given, as a fundamental truth, which is part of his philosophical system! Weierbach must heed his own words on p. 54: “We must stop reading into the text what is not there.”

His philosophy assumes that God is required to follow His own commands that He has given to us in the same way (p. 71), concluding: “TULIP teaches that God says do what I say not as I do.” His philosophical underpinnings shine through on pp. 129-130, as well, with an example of human love and marriage. In it, he writes: “In order to gain someone’s love, there needs to be freedom of choice, for without free will, there can be no true love (p. 129). Where is this presented in the Word of God? Indeed, it is not, which means it is a construct of Weierbach’s own making, which in turn means it’s his own hermeneutical and philosophical framework. The irony is then rich when he writes on the very next page: “Like many other Calvinists do, they build their doctrine upon their philosophy. . . This is what happens when someone is so zealous of a philosophy, all logic gets thrown out the window” (p. 130).

Continuing, during his discussion of the use of “election” in the New Testament, he concludes: “Jesus’ words in John 6:70 is one clear indication that election is indeed to an occupation, office, or for service to God.” (Shawn Lazar devotes Appendix B to this end.) Yet, they are advocating for “illegitimate totality transfer,” a term I was first introduced to while reading Dillow’s aforementioned book! They themselves decry ITT when it comes to the Calvinist’s understanding of the word “saved” in the New Testament (and rightfully so!, see p. 174, fn. 222), but then they turn around and do the exact same thing with their use of the word “elect!”

As he examines proof texts for Limited Atonement, he first examines his own proof texts for total atonement. However, as he accuses the Calvinist of proof-texting without regard for context, he now does the same! In the Gospel of John, written to a global audience, John is making the point that the Messiah’s sacrifice isn’t for Jews alone, it is available to anyone who believes (and that with no definitive statement on who can/does believe). In 1 Timothy 2:6, the context is that the Gospel extends even to those kings and those in authority – yes, even them! The Good News isn’t reserved for Jews, or even those who weren’t despised by the masses.

3. Third, it seems as though Weierbach lacks a broader biblical/theological framework in order to properly describe and evaluate other views. Again, Weierbach’s theological and philosophical frameworks drive his conclusions where they ought not to go. This is the case when he asserts that the Messianic Kingdom would’ve begun immediately had the Jews accepted Jesus as their Messiah (p. 20). This flies in the face of Old Testament prophecies looking forward to the Church, as well as the New Testament’s teaching that the Church was the plan all along. Likewise, he brings up what he calls the “Golden Rule of Interpretation” on p. 39, attributing it to David Cooper (fn. 41; cf. p. 44, fn. 45). Yet, he then goes on to describe the analogy of faith, which has been a principle of hermeneutics for centuries upon centuries! It’s curious that he refers to the concept as such, when the analogy of faith is by far the standard nomenclature. Why is that then the case? Is he unaware of the analogy of faith by that name? And, if so, what has been his hermeneutical upbringing, and can it be trustworthy and reliable?

He doesn’t employ the standard lexical resources available to us today (e.g., HALOT, BDAG). On occasion, he defines a word without citing the source (e.g., “euangelion,” p. 19; “dechomai” and “anakrino” [sic], p. 53; “proginōskō,” p. 67). He lacks citations in general (e.g., p. 56, fn. 67, in which he talks about “three ways God reveals His presence to all people,” yet doesn’t document how we know this to be the case, or the source of such information). His works cited largely reflect his own view and, even then, it’s not always published material (e.g., websites, such as p. 54, fn. 54).

4. Fourth, Weierbach’s style lacks a considerable amount of grace and charity. He often uses prejudicial, disparaging, and emotionally-charged language. This starts from his very first page, calling Calvinism “a cult-religion initiated by Augustine” (p. 9, fn. 1). In his estimation, Calvinists do not hold to a God “of mercy and love,” rather One who is “an unjust and sadistic God of tyranny and cruelty” (p. 12). For his attempted efforts to discredit Calvinism as logically incoherent, Weierbach is no stranger to appealing to emotions! After all, who in their right mind would actively choose a theology that views God as “unjust and sadistic!” He also employs the straw man argument of accusing Calvinists of a theology that reduces humanity to “stringed marionette puppets being compelled and controlled by a puppeteer” (p. 16). This is emphatically not Calvinist teaching, and to suggest otherwise is to display a high lack of intellectual honesty. We could also combine those two insults, where on p. 35 he refers to the Calvinist God as a “tyrannical puppeteer!”

On p. 40, his philosophy blinds him from exploring other options when he writes, “Would Jesus not know who would believe in Him because God never gave them the ability to believe? This makes our gracious Lord and Savior quite cynical and diabolical for telling people to do something they are never able to do. How cruel would that be?” For decrying the Calvinist’s philosophical underpinnings, he sure isn’t hesitant to employ his own when it suits his ends! He employs sarcasm and an attitude when attempting to discuss Calvinism: “Oh, that’s right. . . remember Romans 9:19-20?” (p. 72). He presumes a false intent upon Calvinists on p. 91: “Rather than seeking to determine how the two can co-exist, he merely asserts man has no free will, so as to keep the walls of TULIP upright.” Quite bold for an author who hasn’t even defined free will, yet is so intent on keeping it intact in his undefined way!

The appeal to emotion is exceptionally strong on p. 105, and the length doesn’t permit a full quote. Nevertheless: “Once understood, Limited Atonement is so egregious that it makes God seem like a maniacal sadist. . . [Imagine saying such a thing – imagine!] If that does not make your stomach turn, you may need to prick yourself with a needle to see if you are alive.” Not only is this logic highly flawed, but this rhetoric is reprehensible and should be condemned.

It isn’t fitting for brothers in Christ to impugn the views of others in this manner. It’s also highly inappropriate to coerce others to their view by misrepresenting and mischaracterizing their views.

5. Fifth, his presentation and proofreading leave a lot to be desired. I mention this last because, while someone’s communication and editing skills shouldn’t be a reason to discredit their views, it nevertheless taints their views, leaving us wondering, if an author is unable to put together a clear and consistent argument, is that argument going to be valid in the end? When presenting what Calvinists teach, it quotes from non-Calvinist sources. This is most notable with his use of Vance’s “The Other Side of Calvinism,” in places like discussing the definition of total depravity (p. 29). He lacks macrons over the letter “o” on occasion, indicating the Greek letter omega (“anakrinō,” p. 53; ginōskō, p. 66).

There are also inconsistences, like when he talks about the Law of Non-Contradiction. On p. 31, he refers to it as the "third law within the Laws of Logic.” Yet, on p. 115, it is now the “Second Law of Logic.” The Law of Non-Contradiction literally can’t be A and non-A at the same time in the same sense!

6. Sixth, a note about the Introduction. Willson quotes a definition of “sovereignty” from the Cambridge Dictionary. It seems to me that definitions from Merriam-Webster or the Oxford English Dictionary would’ve proven wrong the point he was trying to make. Merriam-Webster, in part, defines “sovereignty” as “controlling influence” or “one that is sovereign.” If we’d turn to the entry for “sovereign,” we could rephrase the latter as “one that is possessing. . . supreme political power or controlling influence.” Cherry-picking sources to support one’s view is academically disingenuous. [Weierbach does the same on p. 172 with “perseverance.” He tries to make a point, but admits in fn. 218 that his NT search was restricted to the English KJV, which only left him with one occurrence of the word. This also includes his discussion on “election,” where he doesn’t discuss the no-less-than-five words that all speak to that truth.] Thus, Willson’s remarks on p. 2 (“Their definition of sovereignty requires a complete reorientation away from its use in every context outside of Calvinism.”) fall flat. Willson also falls prey to my fourth criticism above. On p. 3, he writes, “For many, knowing the TULIP acronym is more important than memorizing John 3:16.” This may be acceptable echo chamber fodder in Free Grace Facebook groups, but Willson would be hard-pressed to find a Calvinist who would say such a thing, let alone “many.” It’s also worth noting that his presentation of the issue at hand on p. 6 is concerning, when he talks about “[losing] 100 possible souls to Calvinism for every 1 who turns to Free Grace.” Aside from editing practices (i.e., “one” instead of “1”), the goal of believers should be pointing people to Jesus, not a theological system. At present, I have been a pastor for six years. I have never once tried to win people over to Calvinism. (That hasn’t stopped me from preaching and teaching it, albeit without the labels!) We can’t have this us vs. them mentality. We must be brothers encouraging one another to pursue the truth according to the riches of glory in Christ Jesus.

Now, Weierbach and others might object that I haven’t dealt with the substance of the book. I have no desire to refute LOTUS itself in this setting. As I maintained from the beginning, Weierbach has every right to self-publish his work, explaining to others what it is he believes the Word of God to say. The issue with this work is that it is self-defeating. He employs the same methods and supposed errors that he accuses Calvinists of making! He has underlying theological and philosophical assumptions that then color the way he interprets the remainder of the Word of God.

As such, this book fails to prove what it sets out to prove. A book like this is much needed, and would be a welcome addition on my shelf. But it must be done in an honest and clear way, taking every opportunity to define terms, argue from the Word of God, and not import one’s own theological biases into their interpretation. Ironically, he winds down the main body of his book on p. 206: “In summation, there are no logical fallacies, no imported philosophies, and no dilemmas or paradoxes found within the LOTUS framework. Just a literal understanding of what the Scriptures teach regarding soteriology.” Given everything outlined above, I must wonder how Weierbach can write that in good faith. I’d love for a good case to be made for this LOTUS framework. This book, however, falls woefully flat given its own stated goals and criteria.

[Dominick · Rating 5 out of 5]

Wow ! What a eye-opener read ! Grateful for this book !

[Nick Bell · Rating 4 out of 5]

Absolutely fantastic book! It really helps to better understand what the Reformed Folks actually mean when they say TULIP and this book gives a great BIBLICAL alternative