Pick The Brighter Tulip: There Is An Alternative To Calvinism
by Alger Fitch
Jopin: College Press, 1993, 75 pp., tradepaper.

I purchased Pick The Brighter Tulip for about $6, and was rather disappointed to find that it contained less than 60 pages of text. After reading it, I was glad that it wasn't longer. Alger Fitch comes across as a kindly gentleman who loves the Lord but has no clue about the Calvinist doctrines he is attempting to refute, and therefore would have been better off taking a few naps than writing this book.

The back cover reveals the author's bias, claiming that Reformed thought is not Biblical, but derived solely from John Calvin in spite of Scripture. Readers are invited to pick "the better, the more reasonable, the more biblical TULIP (back cover)."

Apparently the author belongs to the Church of Christ, or some related Campbellite church, as he makes much of baptism in his opening chapter, and then rather oddly blames things like "The Four Spiritual Laws" and the state of evangelicalism on the five points of Calvinism. He then encourages us to admire a supposed false teacher:

J.C. could stand for Jesus Christ or John Calvin. Let all who confess Jesus as the Christ, our Savior and Lord, admire j.c. (John Calvin). Keep Calvin in lower case in your mind. Reserve upper case in your heart for Christ alone (16).

Why anyone should admire "j.c." if he taught unbiblical doctrine, I have no idea. Nonetheless, we move into five chapters, one for each point of the TULIP. New, and supposedly improved, variations on the TULIP theme have been attempted by others without success. See McLaren, Brian (A Generous Orthodoxy). I'll at least give Fitch credit for coming up with his ideas a decade before McLaren.

Fitch begins by turning Total Depravity into Tremendous Value. The Calvinist view is not that all people are as evil as they could be, but that when it comes to salvation, we are utterly fallen and unable to save ourselves. Salvation must be an act of God raising dead sinners to spiritual life, as Paul wrote: To counter this view, Fitch appeals to Shakespeare:

What a piece of work is man! How noble in reason! How infinite in faculty! (18)"

This is a counter-argument to total depravity? Shakespeare's claim that man is infinite in faculty? One is hard-pressed to take the book seriously after reading that, but we press on.

Fitch somehow wanders into a discussion of low self-esteem and contrasts Calvinism with a God who cares for sinners, apparently oblivious to the fact that accepting the Biblical teaching on man's total depravity emphasises the love of God who gave Himself a ransom for many despite that very depravity.

Romans 8 tells us I don't see too much here about the campaign of Jesus to wipe out self-esteem. In stark contrast to the Bible, Fitch asserts,

Your worth to your Maker is eternal and never depreciates...Assured by Jesus that I am loved of God, I am ready to face the sin question. With the Savior by our side -- and on our side -- we are prepared to look together into the Bible mirror and see our sinful condition (22).

Oddly enough, his view results in sinners spending eternity in hell despite a never-depreciating worth to God and a love identical to that He shows to the saints in heaven. Fitch soon has readers slapping the sides of their heads in frustration as he follows this with a fine Reformed statement:

From Genesis to Revelation the Divine Record is that God came to the rescue of fallen men and women, who could in no way save themselves...Lost sheep have not the intelligence to recognize their lostness and form committees to discover the ways and means of ram and ewe recovery. Their single hope is a shepherd who cares. Lost coins are dead to ideas of rescue (24, 25).

Exactly! So why attack Calvinism? It's all quite puzzling. The primary point seems to be that humans are fallen, but "not so totally depraved they cannot say 'Yes' to Jeusus' gracious offer (25)." Of course, that neatly ignores Romans 8:7-8.

The next chapter has Unconditional Election becoming Unfathomable Love. Election tends to be the sticking point for anti-Calvinists. They can't stand the thought of God having sovereignty over man in salvation. Fitch misrepresents Calvinism with the usual false dichotomies:

Are some humans to be saved in spite of themselves, while others are to be lost to please the whim of an autocratic deity? Am I man, or robot? Human or automaton? Responsible or irresponsible? (30)

The Calvinist response is that no one merits salvation, so the first question must be answered in the affirmative. Some are saved, and it is always in spite of themselves. Dead sinners are raised to spiritual life to the glory of God. The rest are lost due to their sin, not to please a whim. I am man, not robot. I am human, not automaton, and I am responsible, not irresponsible. Apparently Fitch has never heard of compatibilism, which states that man makes choices according to his desires and has responsiblity for his actions, even as God ultimately has sovereignty over all.

A common relegation of election to a plan rather than to individuals is presented:

God predetermined to send Jesus into the lost world and chose then that all persons who would accept Christ His Son would be saved. His decision was to forgive all who would receive the offer. It was not, however, His verdict who those individuals would be (31).

Of course not. Paul was wrong when he wrote: Jesus must have been confused about man's inability when He stated, In Fitch's theology, the spiritually dead elect themselves, changing themselves into God-pleasing sheep. What did Jesus say? Notice the relationship? Jesus didn't say, "You are not my sheep because you don't believe." He said, "You don't believe because you are not my sheep." He didn't say, "They accept the offer of eternal life," but "I give them eternal life." The action in Biblical salvation is God-driven, not man-driven.

Fitch wraps up the election section with the horrid "Satan's power matches God's" illustration:

God, He is voting for you; and the devil, he is voting against you; and whichever way you vote, that is the way the election goes (33).

Man plus Satan overwhelms God. What a disgusting concept. Jesus taught something quite different: The Savior claimed 100% success. Surely that's why the elders in heaven could sing, When something is purchased, it is paid for and claimed. For some strange reason, the following verse never appears in Pick The Brighter Tulip: I guess they appointed themselves. The new tulip is looking pretty dim to me, and we haven't even heard the attempts to explain away predestination yet. The book's solution for predestination?

Reading in context the Bible passages (Acts 4:28; Romans 8:29-30; Ephesians 1:5-11; 1 Thessalonians 2:13) where "predestination" (foreordination) or synonyms are used, leads to the conclusion that God predestined the plan -- not the man. He chose the type of class of those He would forgive -- not the particular persons who would enter the plan (35). (italics in the original)

Utterly baffling. Fitch doesn't quote the verses, perhaps because his case falls apart if someone actually reads the passages. Not wishing to let him off, we shall examine them. I'll start one verse earlier for the verse reference (context is always vital): That sounds quite personal to me, like God chose Herod and Pilate to carry out His plan. What about Romans 8? Every indication in the passage is that Paul is referring to individuals. How does this lead to a conclusion that a generic plan is being described? To get the proper context for Ephesians 5:1-11, we'll include some earlier verses: Paul writes to "the faithful in Christ Jesus." Yes, they are a class, but a class is made up of individuals. Verse 4 says that "he chose us," sounding more individual than plan-oriented. Read the entire passage carefully. Could anyone surmise that this describes a generic class rather than individuals? Don't skip over verse 11. This is a God who works out everything in conformity with the purpose of his will.

The final reference is given incorrectly. Fitch really meant 2 Thessalonians, but it's much safer if people read 1 Thessalonians 2:13, as that verse has nothing to do with the topic. The correct reference is quite damaging to his position: How could that be any more personal? How could that be any more predestinarian? No wonder 1 Thessalonians was given as a reference instead.

Fitch then gives the standard attack on foreknowledge by having God be the passive observer, knowing but not causing. This is on the same page that he references Ephesians 1:11, albeit without quoting it: It doesn't say "predestined according to the knowledge of him who observes everything passively." Since it states quite the opposite, Fitch was wise to reference the verse without actually providing the text.

Limited Atonement is next, replaced by Limitless Opportunity. As is the case for all but universalists, Fitch can only deny limited atonement by making it an ineffective atonement. All of mankind has been atoned for, including those already in hell before Jesus paid for sin on the cross. From Herod to Hitler and beyond, everyone was atoned for in the same way. Substitutionary atonement is denied, as the concept would become meaningless if God poured out his wrath on Jesus for the sins of those whom God knew He would punish in hell later. This view results in the odd--but consistent--statement by Dave Hunt that no one goes to hell because of their sins.

Like all synergists, Fitch takes The Princess Bride approach to man's condition: there's dead, and there's mostly dead. Synergists favor "mostly dead" in their view of salvation: I don't see verses saying sinners are ill--my Bible says we are dead until God makes us alive. Romans 7-8, Ephesians 2:5, Colossians 2:13, etc., all speak of dead sinners. Dead sinners don't take medicine unless they've already been raised to life.

Irresistible Grace may be the least understood, or at least most distorted, Calvinist doctrine. Fitch prefers Irrefutable Goodness, as though Calvinists would deny the goodness of God by acknowledging His sovereignty.

Ironically, Fitch references the hymn "Amazing Grace" to contrast it to "Irresistible Grace," apparently not realizing that hymnwriter John Newton was a Calvinist (51). Paragraphs later, the irony continues as Fitch writes of praying for someone's conversion and contrasts that to Calvinism! He has spent much of his book establishing that man is a free moral agent and God can only persuade, not change. It is utterly pointless to pray for God to change someone's heart if you don't believe God is allowed to do any such thing unless the person requests it. If man is free, sovereign over God's will, we should never ask God to change anything. That's like insulting Him, almost teasing Him about something He's incapable of doing. A Calvinist can pray, "God give life to my friend and raise her out of her spiritual deadness" knowing that God is fully capable of accomplishing that miracle.

Fitch quotes Romans 8:38-39 The passage does not say we cannot separate ourselves. Really? Remember that Fitch earlier exhorted us to read in context, so let's take his advice: Can someone be outside of the body of Christ and be glorified? Then we move on to the passage he quotes: It appears obvious that all of us as individuals are including, along with our actions, in Paul's list: death nor life, present nor the future, nor anything else. Doesn't "nor anything else" pretty much cover it all? I'm not sure how he could have made it any plainer.

Anti-Calvinists find it mandatory to either misquote or misuse Matthew 23:37. Fitch is no exception:

"How often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing" (Matthew 23:37). Heaven's desire was that the people of Jerusalem would have responded affirmatively to Jesus' call, but their obstinate will had voted for refusal (53).

While the common misquote is "I longed to gather you," Fitch actually quotes the verse correctly; he just doesn't read it correctly. Let's make it simple: J = Jesus, C = children, Y = you AKA religious leaders (teachers of the law and Pharisees). That should make it easy. J longs to gather C, but Y is not willing. C is not Y. It is not J longed to gather C and C was not willing, or J longed to gather Y and Y was not willing, but J longed to gather C and Y was not willing. That should clarify things. Since Jesus was lamenting a third-party's opposition to His gathering the children, one can't very well make the case that the children could therefore resist His grace, showing that irresistible grace is false.

Would one of the non-elect mistakenly have been led into thinking Jesus wanted him, when in fact the unchangeable decision made by the Father long ago was that he was to be reprobate? (54)

No.

Fitch asserts that predestination is a meaningless term:

Predestination in scriptural thinking is the pre-creation fixing of the categores for human choice: In or out, saved or lost, redeemed or damned (54).

That's easy. Let's substituted the definition for the word and see how it works: That doesn't diminish the passage at all. Not all. Right.

Painful as it is, I persevere on to the final point, the change from Perseverance of Saints to Promises to Saints. I prefer Preservation of the Saints, but that is a minor quibble. Let's examine how Fitch distorts this doctrine:

The teaching is explained by a comparison to riding a train from one city to another. One rider may play cards, gamble, and steep himself in alcoholic beverages all the journey long; but, if he is on the train, he with all the other passengers will arrive at the announced destination.

Exponents of the doctrine will not disagree with this presentation as overstated (62).

I disagree. It's overstated and misguided. Regardless of what one may think of cards, gambling or alcohol, Fitch clearly seeks to make the point that passengers who don't rightfully belong on the train will arrive at the destination and be treated like the rightful passengers. To make his illustration more accurate, we can modify it to say that any false passengers will arrive, only to hear the words of Jesus: The actual Calvinistic teaching is that since God has graciously saved a people and adopted them for His own at great cost, He He is able. That is the essence of Calvinism--not the glory and ability of man, but the glory and ability of God. Why would anyone seek a brighter TULIP than that?

---

---

---

---