Is Calvinism Biblical? Two Christians in Conversation
What is Calvinism? What does the Bible say about what it teaches? Can we reconcile God’s Sovereignty with human responsibility?
These are big questions and even though this is an “in-house” debate, good Christians can and often do disagree sharply. Some will even divide over it. What follows is an on-going debate between two Christians, my friend Ken, who believes strongly that the God of Calvinism bears little resemblance to the God of the Bible and me–a happy Calvinist who believes that God’s sovereignty and human responsiblity are two, compatible Biblical truths.
But first, back to the basic question at hand. What is Calvinism and what does a Calvinist believe? On the principle that it is always best to let people define themselves, here’s a definition from Jim Scott Orrick in his book Mere Calvinism:
In two sentences, what is a Calvinist?….First, a Calvinist believes that God always does whatever he pleases. Second, a Calvinist believes that God initiates, sustains, and completes the salvation of everyone who gets saved (p. 14).
I like the above definition. It’s simple and Biblical. I like simple and Biblical. My hope is that this dialogue will lead us all to wrestle with God and how He has made Himself known with a persistence that says, “I will not let you go unless you bless me!”
*Misspellings have been kept to preserve the original dialogue
PART ONE: How I became a Happy Calvinist
Hi Adam!
How are you and the family doing?
As you probably are aware, this Calvinism issue is very important to me. Would you be interested in having a conversation or allowing me to ask you questions about it?
____________________________________________________________________________
Sure, brother! We just moved this weekend, but let’s set a time up.
Sent from my iPhone
____________________________________________________________________________
I usually have just Sundays off, so maybe we can schedule a Sunday night? Otherwise, may I email you questions and you can answer at your leisure?
____________________________________________________________________________
Let’s do both! Send me an email, I’ll respond and then we’ll catch up on a Sunday night. I just got in from Atlanta, so I’ll look at the calendar for a phone conversation. Thanks!
Sent from my iPhone
____________________________________________________________________________
Adam,
My first set of questions is regarding your Calvinism journey.
1. How and when were you introduced to these concepts formally?
2. How did you initially react?
3. Have you changed your views over time, such as having developed into a stronger and stronger Calvinist or perhaps starting strong and then moving back to the middle or were you always a Compatibalist?
4. If there were changes, what new knowledge caused the change in your perspective?
Ken
_____________________________________________________________________________
Thoughtful questions! I’ll get back to you soon!
Making much of Jesus with you!
_____________________________________________________________________________
Brother Ken!
What a great week it’s been. I’ve been meeting with a guy named Skip for about 4 months to talk about Jesus and his open skepticism about Christianity. By God’s grace, Skip just trusted in Jesus! Please pray that God would also open the heart of his wife Dawn. She’s not just skeptical, she’s hostile. The topic that you and I are talking about gives me great confidence to tell people like Skip about Jesus and believe that God can overcome Dawn’s hardness of heart with his overwhelming mercy. Perhaps in another discussion we can talk about how the doctrines of grace fuel my mission to tell people about Jesus. Here’s a little bit about my journey into the doctrines of grace (I prefer to use that term instead of Calvinism)…
1. How and when were you introduced to these concepts formally?
God opened my heart to respond to the gospel when I was about 7-8 years of age, but I wasn’t formally discipled until I was in my 20’s. My first brush with unconditional election came at ECC in a student led Bible study. I was visiting and the group was working through Ephesians 1-2. There was a girl in the group who talked about election as God’s free choice (not based upon anything good or bad that we had done). I was offended. To me, this was patently unfair and seemed to make God unjust. I argued with her, and because the tide in the room was more with me than her, I shut her down. But that Bible study session put a rock in my shoe. I started exploring words like foreknowledge, predestination and election. Renal and I were church-shopping at the time and I can remember asking a pastor at the church we were visiting about these issues, but he waived me off by saying, “Awe, don’t get mixed up in all that stuff, just trust in Jesus.” I found this very unsatisfying, so we kept looking. I ran into a guy that God had used to dislodge me from the New Age movement a few years back and he invited me to his Bible study. A closer look at passages that taught things like total depravity and unconditional election (and the sheer weight of these verses), pulled me into the doctrines of grace. I guess there was a push and a pull. The pull was the Bible and the push was the pastor waiving me off.
2. How did you initially react?
I was offended. I felt like I had to fight for God’s fairness.
3. Have you changed your views over time, such as having developed into a stronger and stronger Calvinist or perhaps starting strong and then moving back to the middle or were you always a Compatibalist?
As you probably know, there is a spectrum in Calvinism. There are so-called “hyper-calvinists” who believe in such hard determinism that it seems (to me) hard to square their views with what the Bible teaches about human responsibility and God’s salvific stance towards the world. To be honest, I have found brothers and sisters on both ends of the theological spectrum (i.e Calvinism and Arminianism) who do a fair bit of exegetical gymnastics to avoid the plain teaching of Scripture because a verse does not fit easilly within their systematic framework. What I find most appealing about Compatibilism is that it doesn’t treat the text like it’s plastic and recognizes the limitiations of theological systems. There was a time when I was probably a hyper-calvinist, but as I get older (and hopefully more mature in my faith) I am more comfortable with mystery. I embrace the tension of God’s sovereignty and human responsibility, finding both clearly taught in the Bible.
4. If there were changes, what new knowledge caused the change in your perspective?
Hmmm. Initially, I felt like some Christians had withheld important information about God’s sovereignty from me. I swung hard into hyper -calvinism and a critical and unloving spirit followed. I can remember cherishing a tract I found, a kind of anti-Four Spiritual Laws pamphlet, that said, “God hates you and has a terrible plan for your life.” To my shame, I had become proud. I even relished debating some of the professors at Moody. I asked one professor what he though about God hating sinners and he recoiled, “No, God loves the sinner but hates the sin.” To that I smugly replied, “Then why does Psalm 5:5 say that God hates ‘all who do wrong'”? Once again, by God’s grace, the sheer weight of Scripture about God’s love for sinners and His salvific stance towards the world pulled me back from hyper-calvinism. Pastor Tom was helpful here and turned me on to the writings of John Piper. His work on 1 Tim. 2:3 was especially helpful.
_________________________________________________________________________________
Thank you so much for the thoughtful responses! As you can tell from the pace of my emails (and time stamps) it might take a bit for me to get a new email to you! Looking forward to more!
__________________________________________________________________________________
Adam,
May God continue to strengthen, instruct, and lead you! I pray He provides you with peace in ALL areas of your life, and bless you with the fruit of your labors here on earth!
I am re-reading your answers and am once again refreshed by the thoroughness and honesty of the answers. I am excited to ask more questions. Here are a few more:
1. Do the doctrines of Grace differ at all from TULIP?
2. What are they and where do you stand on each?
3. Specifically, how does each doctrine of grace fuel you?
4. What are the strongest passages that you know to prove each doctrine of grace (i.e. total depravity and unconditional election)?
5. In summary, what was John Piper’s perspective on I Tim 2:3 and how did it help you?
FYI – I have been praying for Skip to be strengthened and encouraged in his new walk and that the seed has fallen on fertile ground as opposed to hard, rocky, weed ridden ground. I am also praying that Dawn not be a “weed” in his life, but rather be softened by the Holy Spirit and Skip’s living testimony. May she come to a knowledge of the truth and bear fruit as well!
__________________________________________________________________________________
Brother Ken,
Thanks so much for keeping Skip and Dawn in your prayers! I’m enjoying our E-discussion:
1. Do the doctrines of Grace differ at all from TULIP?
No, it’s just my preference. TULIP too often suffers from misrepresentation. It’s a clever memory device, but is too often subject to caricature. To the degree that it is helpful, it can be a helpful summary of Calvinistic soteriology. But the word Calvinism means different things to different people. For example, a couple that helped us out launching the Pingree Grove campus moved to Cary and started looking for another church. A month or so into their search for a new church, the man called me and asked if I knew any churches that were not Calvinistic, because he couldn’t agree with it. I laughed and replied, “You know that I’m a Calvinist, right? So is Pastor Tom.” He was stunned and replied, “I couldn’t sniff it out.” I laughed again and said, “Could it be that you have a false caricature of what Calvinists believe?” I think in his mind, Calvinists did not do the work of evangelists, and because we’re so missional, he assumed that we were not Calvinists. I also prefer Doctrines of Grace because its hard to squeeze theological concepts into labels like “Calvinism” and “Arminianism.” These men were faithful and fruitful, but also flawed. I also very much doubt that they would want to be labeled in this way (both men would point away from themselves and to God).
2. What are they and where do you stand on each?
Here’s how I understand the Doctrines of Grace (i.e. TULIP):
Total depravity:
Since the Fall, man is bent in on himself and inclined towards evil and against good. There is not one aspect of his being that has not been polluted by sin. We are “dead” towards God in the sense that we are insensative to the things of God and incapable of bringing ourselves back to spiritual life. No one forces a person to sin, we sin because we love darkness. In this condition, we do not have the power within our own will to see the gospel for what it is and trust in Jesus. Once again, the term can suffer from mispresentaion. The issue is not how bad a person is or whether or not he/she is morally responsible for his/her actions and choices. Some prefer the term “pervasive depravity.”
Unconditional Election:
God chooses some hell-deserving sinners to be saved, not on the basis of anything good or bad that they have done, but only because of His sovereign good pleasure to show mercy. He did this before the foundation of the world. “Conditional” election would teach that God chooses some in response to their selection of him (i.e faith + repentance are the cause of election). My view is that faith + repentance are the effect of salvation. One last thing, unconditional election is the view that God elects individuals to eternal life, as opposed to “class” or “corporate” election.
Limited Atonement
Here again, many of us prefer the term “definite atonement” or something like that. What we’re trying to say is that God did not just make salvation possible, but that He actually accomplished it and applies it to His elect. Here’s the problem, when theologians start talking about the extent of the atonement, they begin by asking, “For whom did Christ die?” I think this is the wrong question. It unnecessarily puts passages of Scripture that teach that Christ died for the church/His sheep (Jn. 10:11; Acts 20:28) in a wrestling match with verses that have a more universal scope (Jn. 3:16; 1 Jn. 2:2). See what I mean? A better and more Biblical question would be: “Did Christ die for all men in the same way?” If I ask it this way, it allows me to handle and make sense of both sets of passages. God’s stance towards the world (in its badness) is salvific and Jesus’ sacrifice is sufficient for all without distinction, but the atonement is only efficient for the elect.
Irresistible Grace:
Once again, an unfortunate term in at least two respects: 1) God does not force a person to believe against their will; and 2) Yes, people can and regularly do resist God’s revealed will and the common grace that should have them giving praise to God. There are better terms: “overwhelming mercy” ; “effectual transformation”; and “effectual grace.” God’s efficatious call will not be rejected; His sheep will hear His voice. This is due to the Spirit’s work of regeneration and transformation, grace overwhelms and replaces our hardness of heart. Though they seem to happen simultaneously, regeneration precedes faith and repentance.
Perseverance of the Saints
All those who are truly born again (i.e. the elect) are kept by Jesus and will persevere until the end. As Christians we can have assurance of salvation as we continue in the faith. Perseverance is proof of life. All true Christians persevere. My Baptist brethren like the term “eternal security.” I like this as well and see it as the opposite side of the same coin. We’re getting at the same idea of being kept by Jesus, but I prefer the term perseverance because faith is a battle and we are called to endure.
Much more could be said under each heading.
3. Specifically, how does each doctrine of grace fuel you?
Pervasive depravity keeps me looking outside of myself for salvation. The other day I read a bumper sticker with a Buddhist symbol on it that said, “Inquire within.” I have looked inside and agree with Paul instead of Siddartha, “There is nothing good in me, that is in my flesh” (Rom. 7:18).
Unconditional election humbles me. It cause me to sing songs like, “O to grace how great a debtor daily I’m constrained to be.” It also goes a long way to explaining how it is that I believe while people that are smarter, kinder and more loving than me don’t. Unconditional election also fuels my evangelism. I know that God has His elect out there and that they will hear His voice and believe through the proclamation of the gospel. It’s not my job to convert anyone, only to tell the story of Jesus. God does all the heavy-lifting in evangelism.
Limited atonement gives me confidence in God. He didn’t merely make salvation possible–He accomplished it and applied it to me. Jesus paid it all and God’s wrath has been averted.
Irresistible grace teaches me that God’s elect can only stray so far before God says, “This far and no further” and they come to their senses. This is my hope for my prodigal daughter. I think you know how grieved Renal and I are over this, but we are not without hope.
Perseverance lets me sleep at night. I know that I am kept by Jesus–nothing and no one can separate me from the love of God in Christ.
4. What are the strongest passages that you know to prove each doctrine of grace (i.e. total depravity and unconditional election)?
I’m glad that you asked for more than one passage, because the Doctrines of Grace do not stand or fall with a single verse. I also want to acknowledge that each of these verses has a context that should be explored. Lastly, please remember that I am a Compatibilist. Too often, some Calvinists and Arminians get into a “My-verse-can-beat-up-your-verse” approach. As a Compatibilistic Calvinist, I embrace the tension of divine sovereignty and human responsibility. I recently did a podcast on this and you can find it at www.pastoradam.org.
For the sake of simplicity (and the search for context that we might get into down the road) I will attempt to anchor everything in the Gospel of John. This could be interesting, because John is the Gospel of belief (20:31) and God’s salvific stance towards the world is clear, but it is also the Gospel that most clearly articulates God’s sovereignty in salvation. John is the Gospel of “Compatibilism.” People are responsible to believe (Jn 5:40) and God’s salvific stance towards the world is clear (Jn. 3:16; 12:32), yet in John, only those given to Jesus by the Father can come to Him and believe and be saved.
Total Depravity/Pervasive Depravity: Men love darkness (Jn. 3:19). I do not believe that the Bible teaches that we have free-will (i.e. ultimate self-determination), but we do have free moral agency. This means that people are free to choose what their hearts desire. In this case, people desire the wrong things; they do not come into the light because they do not love it, instead they love darkness. Light and dark are of course metaphors for truth, the things of God, etc.
Other passages about human inability include: Job 15:14; Ps. 51:5; Eccl. 7:29; Mk. 7:21-23; Jn. 8:34; Rom. 3:9-12; 8:7-8; 1 Cor. 2:14; Eph. 2:1-3.
Unconditional Election: In John’s Gospel, unconditional election is conveyed with the teaching that the Father gives certain people to the Son (Jn. 6:37-40, 44, 65). This giving precedes eternal life and is the cause of it. Those people that have been “gifted” to the Son include the disciples, but also future believers who have yet to hear the good news and believe (Jn. 17:2, 20). The idea is also conveyed through Jesus’ good shepherd word-picture. Why does person believe in Jesus? The answer is because they are His sheep (Jn. 10:26). The context is quite clear. When a person does not believe it is because they are not His (Jn. 10:26). But let’s look briefly at John 6…
It is morally impossible for a person to come to Jesus unless the Father draws him/her (6:44, 65). The words moral impossibility are important. People do not lack opportunity, a mind to think about the gospel and or the responsibility to believe. They are free to choose what their hearts desire, but they love darkness. Here’s an illustration. If you put a plate of liver and onions in front of me, I would say, “I can’t eat this!” The reason I cannot eat liver is not because I lack teeth, the ability to swallow, a digestive system, etc, but because I loathe the taste of it. God would have to change something in me to get me to eat it. In a similar way, before the new birth, I do not love the light. I need radical heart-change (regeneration) to enable me to see Jesus for who He is, love Him and believe in Him. Regeneration precedes faith and repentance (which are also gifts from God). Interestingly, the apostle John makes the order of salvation clear in 1 Jn. 5:1 with the use of the perfect tense (lit. “Everyone who is believing (present tense) has been born again (perfect tense”).
It is impossible for those that the Father draws NOT to come to Jesus (Jn. 6:37). This is not the language of possibility, but certainty.
It is impossible for those who the Father draws to be cast out (Jn. 6:37).
This is just John’s Gospel. Other great passages include Matt. 11:25-27; Acts 13:48; Rom. 8:28-30; Eph. 1:3-6; Rev. 13:8; 17:8 and, of course, you’ve hit the motherlode of controversy with Romans 9. LOL!
Limited Atonement/Definite Atonement: The issue set up here is whether or not Jesus accomplished atonement or simply made it possible (contingent on people choosing it). All for whom Christ died efficiently are or will be saved. The notes of certainty are clear in passages like Matt. 1:21’s “He will save His people from their sins”; the teaching that He laid down His life for His sheep (Jn. 10:11). He is the “lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world” (Jn. 1:29). He purchased the church (i.e. His people) with His own blood (Acts 20:28). See also Rev. 5:9. Sorry, but I slipped out of the Gospel of John on this one. It bears repeating though, that I hold to a sufficient/efficient view of the atonement and instead of asking, “For whom did Christ die?” prefer the question, “Did Christ die for all men in the same way?”
Irresistible grace: “All that the Father gives me will come to Me” (Jn. 6:37 emphasis mine). This is a great example of effectual grace. Another example would be Jesus’ statement that His sheep “will hear” His voice (Jn. 10:3).
Perseverance: Jn. 6:38-40; 10:27-29 give us hope that we are kept by Jesus. There are many more verses of course. The distinction that John makes in his first epistle between those who remain/abide and those who leave the church strengthens this view, “They went out from us because they were never of us” (1 Jn. 2:19 emphasis mine). This is an interesting statement because one of the big motifs in 1st John is “proof of life” (how do you know that you’re a real-deal Christian?). The use of the genitive case “of us” contrasts with the going out “from us.” John is telling us that perseverance is a proof of life.
5. In summary, what was John Piper’s perspective on I Tim 2:3 and how did it help you?
It would be best for you to read it yourself, but I will give a summary. Basically, 1 Tim. 2:3 is a problem for both Calvinists and Armininians. If God can do whatever He pleases (Ps. 115:3 for example), and He desires/wants the salvation of all men, then why do some perish? Since none of us are universalists (believing that no one will perish or go to hell), how do we explain this? Both Calvinists and Arminians have to concede that God has two ways of willing and that there is something that He wills more than the salvation of all men, or else all would be saved. So, here’s the question: what does God desire more (or more strongly) that the salvation of all men?
You can read more, should you have the time and interest at https://www.desiringgod.org/articles/are-there-two-wills-in-god
I hope that this discussion is helpful. Grace to you!
_________________________________________________________________________________
