"Who Are
You Calling A Calvinist?"
by
Pastor Mike Wilkins
I was first called a
"Calvinist" in an English Renaissance literature class at Queen's
University by a professor who called himself a "Christian humanist."
Neither his label for me or his label for himself meant anything to me at the
time. To my mind, I was simply "a Christian" who was trying to
reflect what the Bible actually said about God, about mankind and about
salvation. That was 1974. I have since had opportunity to study the very old
debate that in the seventeenth century centred around the work of two
theologians, John Calvin and Jacob Arminius. This is what I have learned...
Historical
Background ...
Early
in the days of the Protestant Reformation (the mid 1500's), a Frenchman named
Jean Calvin reluctantly became its most influential spokesman. For many years,
he was a pastor in Geneva, Switzerland, where the Reformation had taken root.
His wish was to live a quiet life in an academic setting, but his humility, his
godliness, his scholarship and his unspeakably industrious schedule catapulted
him into a position of prominence throughout Europe. His "handbook"
for Christian living: "The Institutes of the Christian Religion,"
became (and remains) THE textbook of the Reformed faith. The specific doctrines
of God and man and salvation that are usually referred to as
"Calvinism" are only a portion of the many details of his
articulation of a thoroughy biblical worldview. More complete statements of
Calvin's theology can be found in The Belgic Confession, The Heidelberg
Catechism and The Westminster Confession of Faith.
Late
in the 1500's, a Dutch theologian named Jacob Harmensz found himself no longer
in complete agreement with the view of God and man and salvation that had
become widely held in Reformed churches and universities. His willingness to
speak out against Calvin's understanding of Scripture attracted a great deal of
attention and in some quarters a great deal of enthusiastic support. After
Harmensz' death in 1609, a group of theologians who became known as the
"Remonstrants" drew together a summary of their objections to
Calvin's teachings, which they called "The Remonstrance". It had five
basic points. The Remonstrants drew heavily from the writings of the theologian
whose surname translates into Latin as "Arminius." In time these
people became known as "Arminians".
In
1618, a synod was called in the city of Dort to evaluate and respond to the
teachings of the "Arminians." Emerging from this synod in 1619,
"The Canons of Dort" answered the five objections of the Remonstrance
and reaffirmed the biblicity of Calvin's teaching. The first letters of these
five "points", if translated into English and rearranged, can be made
to spell the word TULIP. From this incidental detail comes the popular
misconception of Calvin as a theologian with five negative things to say.
Equally untrue is the notion that Calvin and Arminius were narrow-minded
scholars whose cold logic drove them both to ignore about half of what the
Bible says in order to produce theological systems through which any casual
reader of the Bible can see.
"The
Five Issues" ... 1. The extent of the damage done to the human
race by sin.
Arminians
say that a person's desire and ability to please God has been seriously
impaired by his sinfulness, but that the impairment is partial. People, at
least some people, still have enough goodness in them to turn from sin and to
live for God if given the opportunity. Romans 10:9-13. Calvinists say that the
damage done by "the fall" was so great that humans have lost entirely
their desire and ability to turn from sin and to live for God. This teaching is
summarized by the words "Total Depravity," a term which means that
sin has affected humanity in all aspects of life. Romans 1:18-32, Romans 3:10-18.
Comment: The Bible
describes unredeemed people as "dead" and as "slaves". Both
corpses and slaves lack what most Arminians mean by "free will": the
desire and ability to turn to God on one's own. Romans 1:18-32 makes it clear:
the Calvinistic assessment of mankind is the biblical one.
2.
The basis upon which God chooses (or elects) some to be saved.
Arminians
say that God, desiring all human beings to be saved, chooses to save those that
He knows will choose to turn to Him if they are given a chance. I Tim. 2:3,4, I
Peter 1:2, II Peter 3:9.
Calvinists
say that God, knowing that no human being will ever choose on his own to turn
from sin and live for God, displays His grace and mercy by choosing to save
some, and displays His justice and wrath by declining to save others. This is
referred to as "Unconditional Election." John 6:37-44.
Comment: The
biblical basis of God's choice is God's "foreknowledge" (I Peter
1:2). Romans 8:29 reveals that "foreknowledge" is of people, not of
things, (i.e. peoples' actions); and that God foreknows (and therefore
predestines) some people, not all people. So God does not choose to save some
people because of what is in them. Rather He chooses to save some people in
spite of what is in them... i.e. election is based on God's foreknowledge of
His people, not God's prior knowledge of what all people will do.
3.
The intention of God in sending Christ to the cross as a sin-offering.
Arminians
say that God's intention in sending Christ to the cross was to provide all
mankind with the opportunity to be saved. Forgiveness is therefore made
available to all and is conferred upon any who through faith ask for it. Romans
8:32. Calvinists say that Christ went to the cross with the specific intention
of actually paying the penalty for the sins of those that God had previously
chosen to save. This is known as "Limited Atonement." John
10:11,14,15,25-30, John 17:2, 6-9.
Comment: The
question of the intention of Christ's sacrifice is the real problem for
Arminians. What was Christ actually doing on the cross? Was anything actually
accomplished? Was anything actually paid for? Charles Finney, an Arminian
theologian, said: "I cannot believe in the vicarious atonement (i.e. that
the death of Christ actually purchased anyone's redemption) for if I did I
would either have to become a universalist (someone who believes all humanity
will be saved) or a Calvinist (believing that certain people will be
saved)." His logic was very sound at this point. (And he should have
become a Calvinist!)
4.
The effectiveness of God's saving influences on an individual.
Arminians
say that human beings have the strength of will to resist God in His intentions
to convict them of sin and to bring them to repentance. Therefore some of the
people who God tries to save remain lost nonetheless. Matt.23:37, Acts 7:51,
Hebrews 6:4-6. Calvinists say that God cannot be resisted in any of His
intentions, except in the specific ways in which He allows Himself to be
resisted. Every person that God intends to save shall be saved. God being
sovereign, His grace always accomplishes what God intends it to accomplish.
This is called "Irresistible Grace." Psalm 115:3, Psalm 135:6, Daniel
4:35, Romans 9:15-21.
Comment: The Bible
is quite plain on the fact that God can and does make things happen. Psalm
115:3, Psalm 135:6, Pr.16:1,9,33, Daniel 4:35, etc.
5.
The degree to which the gift of salvation guarantees eternal life.
Arminians
say that since the salvation of a human being requires that human being's
co-operation, continuing co-operation is essential to the process. Therefore,
saved people who change their minds and turn away from God become once again
unsaved, and perish eternally if they die in that state. Hebrews 6:4-6.
Calvinists say that since the salvation of a human being is initiated by God
and involves giving that person the desire and ability to trust and obey God,
God can and does continue to supply this desire and ability to all He intends
to save. This is referred to as "Perseverance of the Saints." Phil.
1:6, 2:12,13, Jude 24.
Comment: The
scriptural assurances in favour of the "Calvinistic" opinion are well
known. John 10:27-29; Philippians 1:6. What cannot be obtained by any human
effort cannot be then lost by any human effort.
Summary of Opinion
In
general, the "Arminians' conclusions" are based on apparent
implications of Scripture which contradict actual plain statements of
Scripture. (e.g. The Bible says "Whosoever will may come...".
Arminians say, therefore, all human beings have the ability to come to God. But
the Bible doesn't say that "all human beings have the ability to come to
God." The verse only seems to imply it. "The ability to come to
God" is an apparent implication, but an apparent implication that other
verses plainly contradict. e.g. John 6:44, Romans 3:10-18) Clearly, when forced
to choose between a plain Bible statement on the one hand and an apparent
biblical implication on the other, the implication must give way to the
statement. In general, the "Calvinists' conclusions" are based on a
straightforward reading of what the Bible actually teaches about God, about
mankind and about salvation. Why then the strong draw towards Arminianism? It's
always been a very popular point-of-view (long before Arminius starting
teaching it!), and most of the time more popular than Calvinism. My answer to
that question, and my conclusion to the debate, takes me back to 1974, and the
first time I was ever "accused" of being a Calvinist:
"Arminianism" is Christian humanism. It is a blend of some of what
the Bible says about God's intentions and man's need with humanistic
presuppositions about man's inherent autonomy. The popularity of Arminianism
can be explained by the "humanism" that has been an inherent part of
human nature since the third chapter of Genesis. (Consider verse 5)
Three
commonplace modern notions that confuse the debate...
That
the wrath of God is impersonal.
The
common idea is that God doesn't actually hate anybody. But Psalm 5:5 and Psalm
11:5 both say that He does. And then there was Esau, the world population in
Noah's day, the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah, and the people of Canaan in the
days of Joshua ... and then there's Rev. 20:11-15.
That
the love of God is universal.
But
Hebrews 12:6-8 (and many other passages) speak selectively of those that God
loves.
That
mankind exists in some state of moral neutrality.
It
is hard for members of the human race to let go of the notion that the human
race is a pretty nice bunch of people. But Romans 1:18 - 3:18 refutes the idea.
Suggested
reading:
Chosen
by God, R.C. Sproul
Ashamed
of the Gospel, John MacArthur, Jr.
The
Sovereignty of God, A.W. Pink
The
Sovereignty of Grace, A.C. Custance
Evangelism
and the Sovereignty of God, J.I.Packer
A
Quest for Godliness, J.I.Packer
Arminius, Carl
Bangs*
·
· Carl Bangs
is a leading Arminian scholar who can be counted upon to present a sympathetic
account of the life and thought of Arminius. In this book, Bangs explains how
"Calvinistic" Arminius actually was.