Clarifying Calvinism (Part 1)
January 13th, 2009
(By Phil Johnson)
This post is adapted from a transcript of a seminar from a recent Shepherds’ Conference, titled “Closet Calvinists.”
Part I: Is Arminianism damnable heresy?
I love the doctrines of grace and don’t shy away from the label “Calvinist.” I believe in the sovereignty of God. I’m convinced Scripture teaches that God is completely sovereign not only in salvation (effectually calling and granting faith to those whom He chooses); but also in every detail of the outworking of Providence. “Whom He predestined, these He also called; whom He called, these He also justified; and whom He justified, these He also glorified” (Romans 8:30). And He makes “all things work together for good to those who love God, [i.e.,] to those who are the called according to His purpose” (Romans 8:28). Quite simply, He “works all things according to the counsel of His will” (Ephesians 1:11).
That’s what people commonly mean when they speak of “Calvinism.” When I accept that label, I am not pledging allegiance to the man John Calvin. I am not affirming everything he taught, and I’m not condoning everything he did. I’m convinced Calvin was a godly man and one of the finest biblical expositors and theological minds ever, but he wasn’t always right. As a matter of fact, my own convictions are baptistic, so I am by no means one of Calvin’s devoted followers. In other words, when I accept the label “Calvinist,” it’s only for convenience’s sake. I’m not saying “I am of Calvin” in the Corinthian sense.
Furthermore, I’m not one of those who wears Calvinism like a big chip on his shoulder, daring people to fight with me about it. It’s true that I can get feisty about certain points of doctrine—especially when someone attacks a principle that goes to the heart of the gospel, like substitutionary atonement, or original sin, or justification by faith and the principle of imputed righteousness. When one of those principles is challenged, I’m ready to fight. (And I also don’t mind beating up on whatever happens to be the latest evangelical fad.)
But Calvinism isn’t one of those issues I get worked up and angry about. I’ll discuss it with you, but if you are spoiling for a fight about it, you are likely to find me hard to provoke. I spent too many years as an Arminian myself to pretend that the truth on these issues is easy and obvious.
Now, don’t get the wrong idea. I do think the truth of God’s sovereignty is clear and ultimately inescapable in Scripture. But it is a difficult truth to come to grips with, so I am sympathetic with those who struggle with it. I’m Calvinistic enough to believe that God has ordained (at least for the time being) that some of my brethren should hold Arminian opinions.
Over the years I have probably written at least twice as much material trying to tone down angry hyper Calvinists as I have arguing with Arminians. That’s not because I think hyper Calvinism is a more serious error than Arminianism. As a matter of fact, I would say the two errors are strikingly similar. But I don’t hear very many voices of caution being raised against the dangers of hyper Calvinism, and there are armies of Calvinists out there already challenging the Arminians, so I’ve tried to speak out as much as possible against the tendencies of the hypers.
That’s why I’m probably a whole lot less militant than you might expect when it comes to attacking the errors of Arminianism. Besides, I have gotten much further answering Arminian objections with patient teaching and dispassionate, reasonable, biblical instruction—instead of angry arguments and instant anathemas.
Why not take a more passive, lenient, brotherly, approach to all theological disagreements? Because I firmly believe there are some theological errors that do deserve a firm and decisive anathema. That’s Paul’s point in Galatians 1:8-9; and it’s the same point the apostle John makes in 2 John, verses 7-11. When someone is teaching an error that fatally corrupts the truth of the gospel, “let him be anathema.”
But let me be plain here: Simple Arminianism doesn’t fall in that category. It’s not fair to pin the label of rank heresy on Arminianism, the way some of my more zealous Calvinist brethren seem prone to do. I’m talking about historic, evangelical Arminianism, of the classic and Wesleyan varieties — Arminianism, not Pelagianism, or open theism, or whatever heresy Clark Pinnock has invented this week — but true evangelical Arminianism. Arminianism is certainly wrong; and I would argue that it’s inconsistent with itself. But in my judgment, standard, garden variety Arminianism is not so fatally wrong that we need to consign our Arminian brethren to the eternal flames or even automatically refuse them fellowship in our pastors’ fraternals.
If you think I’m beginning to sound like an apologist for Arminianism, I’m definitely not that. I do think Arminianism is a profound error. Its tendencies can be truly sinister, and when it is allowed to go to seed, it does lead people into rank heresy. But what I’m saying here is that mere Arminianism itself isn’t damnable heresy. It’s just grossly inconsistent with the core gospel doctrines that Arminians themselves believe and affirm.
But as long as I’m sounding like a defender of Arminianism, let also me say this: There are plenty of ignorant and inconsistent Calvinists out there, too. With the rise of the Internet it’s easier than ever for self taught lay people to engage in theological dialogue and debate through internet forums. I think that’s mostly good, and I encourage it. But the Internet makes it easy for like minded but ignorant people to clump together and endlessly reinforce one another’s ignorance. And I fear that happens a lot.
Hyper Calvinists seem especially susceptible to that tendency, and there are nests of them here and there—especially on the Internet. And more and more frequently these days I encounter people, who have been influenced by extremism on the Internet, touting hyper Calvinist ideas and insisting that if someone is an Arminian, that person is not really a Christian at all. They equate Arminianism with sheer works salvation. They suggest that Arminianism implicitly denies the atonement. Or they insist that the God worshiped by Arminians is a totally different God from the God of Scripture.
That’s really over-the-top rhetoric—totally unnecessary—and rooted in historical ignorance. A couple of years ago, when I started my weblog, I mentioned that tendency in the first entry I posted, which was titled “Quick and Dirty Calvinism.” At the end of that post, I said this: My advice to young Calvinists is to learn theology from the historic mainstream Calvinist authors, not from blogs and discussion forums on the Internet. Some of the forums may be helpful because they direct you to more important resources. But if you think of the Internet as a surrogate for seminary, you run a very high risk of becoming unbalanced.
Read mainstream Calvinist authors, however, and you’ll have trouble finding even one who regarded Arminianism per se as damnable heresy. There’s a reason for that: It’s because while Arminianism is bafflingly inconsistent, it is not necessarily damnably erroneous. Most Arminians themselves—and I’m still speaking here of the classic and Wesleyan varieties, not Pelagianism masquerading as Arminianism—most Arminians themselves emphatically affirm gospel truth that is actually rooted in Calvinistic presuppositions.
Beloved brother Phil,
In my own simplistic understanding, having spurned anything that remotely removed sovereignty from my control; and later much like John Newton and our beloved Apostle Paul (Even “kick[ing] against the goads” – Acts 9:5; Acts 26:14), not seeking the LORDSHIP of our Master and King over my life; I finally was broken by the Spirit of truth and grace.
I now am sincerely convicted that the Doctrines of Grace are in essence the Doctrines of Salvation; would you agree?
Furthermore I agree that some who do not know anything about Historical Christianity or Theology, and even some who would oppose the Way of grace, as a gift from God Alone(Ephesians 1 & 2) by the power of the Spirit Alone through the knowledge of Scripture Alone(1 Corinthians 1 & 2); may still have been saved by grace Alone, even if they would oppose that thought. However this one question remains answered the same:
Did you REQUIRE the work of the Spirit for your salvation?
Hence, the person would aknowledge that they must have been MADE ALIVE by the AWAKENING and REBIRTH of the Holy Spirit, from spiritual death, for salvation to come.
Your servant for the glory of our Triune YAHWEH Alone,
William
Wow. Great stuff. I’ve been discussing Eastern Orthodoxy with a dear friend who is not a Calvinist, and have had the opportunity to say, “Look, I find the Doctrines of Grace to be a very organized, helpful summary of the testimony of the Scriptures. If you struggle with them, that’s OK. I did too. I’m not going to ram Reformed Theology down your throat.” It’s nice to have a civil conversation about Calvinism, rather than the tense, angry diatribes I experienced from some of my dear seminary brethren in my pre-Calvinism days.
I especially appreciated your explanation of what you mean when you say, “I’m a Calvinist,” and what you DON’T mean. Very helpful. Mind if I quote and link from my blog?
Blessings,
Laura Grace
Or they insist that the God worshiped by Arminians is a totally different God from the God of Scripture.
John MacArthur said this very thing once, that we (non_Calivinists) were inventing God in our image.
I’m still speaking here of the classic and Wesleyan varieties, not Pelagianism masquerading as Arminianism—most Arminians themselves emphatically affirm gospel truth that is actually rooted in Calvinistic presuppositions.
Phil,
thanks for this post. However, would you mind explaining what someone who is a “Pelagian masquerating their theology in Arminianism” would sound like. Maybe give something theologically that they would try to argue. Thanks.
Rich
However, Mr. Johnson (I had to leave the room quickly before and couldn;t finish) I appreciate your acceptance of us non_Calvinists as brothers. I have recently been called a ‘blabbering fool’, a ‘dingbat’ and a ‘demented dog’ for suggesting that God freely extends salvation to all and that the recipient actually has the means to choose. Thank you.
David M.,
I have found that Calvinists and non-Calvinists hold many of the same views. In fact, after carefully scrutinizing the Armenian view of the doctrines of grace, I have come to the conclusion that Armenians and Calvinists differ only in the spectrum to which they attribute different scriptures. Having said this, I must acknowledge that there are “hyper-Calvinists” who always seem to cause a distorted view of Calvinism as a whole.
The difference that I see is that Armenians want to look solely at the scriptures that speak of man’s responsibility, and Calvinists tend to look solely at those verses that emphasize man’s inability. The fact is: both are very true and very easily reconciled. When looking at the verses that speak of man’s responsibility, the common theme is this: they are all directed to unsaved men. In contrasts, the verses that speak of man’s inability are directed to converted/saved Christians. Here is the key: an unsaved man, in his own eyes, and indeed in the eyes of every human being, can choose Christ or choose sin. This is very clear in the Bible (i.e. whosoever will, let him come), hence the Armenian view. However, a saved man has chosen Christ, but realizes that he has done so only because Christ first chose him. In other words, the Christian’s decision to choose Christ was contingent on Christ’s choosing of him. This is also very clear in scripture (i.e. we loved Him because He first loved us), hence the Calvinist view.
Both Calvinists and Armenians are Christians, and differ only in the verses they emphasize. The sad thing is that neither side wants to recognize the validity of the other’s standpoint, and therefore, in my opinion, err on both sides. I no longer call myself a Calvinist because Calvinism has gained a bad reputation due to the hyper-Calvinist stereotype that comes with the name, however, I am a firm believer in the five points that Calvinism teaches. That said, I also believe that man is responsible for his actions/decisions. The difference: my perspective vs. God’s perspective.
Your true brother in Christ,
Daniel
Mr. Johnson,
Thank you for your well-balanced post. Your insight into many different issues, and your ability to state it clearly, has a definite knack for, shall we say, fog removal. After reading your posts, I find myself with a clearer understanding than I had previously.
“…substitutionary atonement, or original sin, or justification by faith and the principle of imputed righteousness. When one of those principles is challenged, I’m ready to fight.”
Amen.
This is a brilliant post, thankyou for this, hopefully it helps prevent major fights!
A VERY helpful booklet is:
Evangelistic Calvinism
by John Benton
http://www.covenanterbooks.com/book/975/Evangelistic%20Calvinism
I don’t like the sovereignty of God stuff. The up side is great. The down side of it is awful. Too much for me to swallow. The 2004 tsunami, the holocaust, the killing fields of Cambodia. Yuck. I can’t believe in a God who would allow this. Maybe his sovereignty is self limited or even a theological projection by the minds of men on what God should be and act like. Who knows? Maybe the fact that devoted Christians differ on this matter suggest the ambiguious nature of the subject found in the Scriptures. Or perhaps the repugnant nature of the ‘down side’ of God’s sovreignty drives the interpretational endeavors of free-will’ers! No se’.
Hey Phil,
I think I have to disagree with you a little on your point about discussion forums. You know when we were back on Theology List, it was a great place to learn. It is more how the list is run, who posts, contents, and stuff. I think too, people were actually changed by the discussion in a positive way.
I think the bad change came with blogs and comments. The content and style of interaction on the old forums and on the blogs now is actually fairly different. Blog interaction does not lend itself to thoughtful and sustained dialogue. On the old lists, anonymity was not well tolerated, and posters were held accountable, more or less, by the discussion community and moderaters. On most blogs, the situation is now the opposite. A lot of “blogging” now can properly be described as Tabloid Blogging.
Blogs, in my opinion, should be informative, for reliable sources, news, etc, or diaries for families, informal activities, etc This is why I am trying to keep C&C information focused.
So to close, I really do miss the good old days of Theology List, even Stamper’s old Reformed List.
Thanks
David
Daniel Chaney said “…I am a firm believer in the five points that Calvinism teaches. That said, I also believe that man is responsible for his actions/decisions.”
both of these statements reflect garden-variety calvinism. there is no contrast to be made.
i disagree with your notion that calvinists “solely look at verses that emphasize man’s inability.” rather, calvinists readily affirm the scriptures that teach man’s responsibility, but differ in that they do not require that a connection be made between responsibility and ability.
calvinists would affirm that “all men are responsible to choose Christ” yet no man has the natural capacity to choose Christ. “all men are responsible to ‘be perfect as God is perfect’” yet no man has the natural capacity to attain that perfection.
to an arminian (please correct the spelling in the future to avoid dragging the people of armenia into this disagreement
), a God who holds men responsible to obey these commands when they lack the natural capacity is unreasonable and unfair. arminians reach this conclusion because their moral philosophy is ultimately founded on humanistic theories, which require a connection between responsibility and ability before there can be any true guilt for sin.
Hmmm. I think the problem also is that mainstream Calvinists before Kuyper, Berkhof and most importantly [John] Murray and Stonehouse do not hold to certain doctrines thought important to mainstream Calvinism [ie well-meant offer], so when someone takes the time to really read the works of John Owen, John Calvin, Francis Turretin etc, as well as contemporary Reformed theologians like C. Matthew McMahon, Gordon H. Clark etc, they are shocked by the seemingly strong and unapologetic language used in support of doctrines such as reprobation and of God’s hatred of the reprobates. To read some modern theologians, it almost seemed as they are ashamed of the doctrine of reprobation. Two wrongs of course never make one right, but maybe the question to be asked also is whether the Amyraldian-type Calvinists are willing to admit that their skewed portrayal of Calvinism may cause people to jump to the other extreme when the difference between “old” and “modern” Calvinism becomes evident.
quote – … their moral philosophy is ultimately founded on humanistic theories, which require a connection between responsibility and ability before there can be any true guilt for sin.”
The Bible itself emphasizes this connection between ability and responsibility. They may be “humanistic theories”, but they are also Biblical ones.
* In deciding who would die in the wilderness and who would be able to see the Promised Land, God spared everyone below the age of 20 – because they lacked the ability to distinguish between right and wrong. No ability, therefore no responsibility, therefore no punishment.
* A number of verses state variations on the concept that the Father will not be held accountable for the sins of the son; the son will not be held accountable for the sins of the Father. No one will be held accountable for sins they did not commit. Those who committed the sins will be the ones held accountable for the sins. There is a very clear connection in these verses between ability-put-into-action (sins) and responsibility and between accountability and punishment.
* Re. those verses that ask “how can there be sin without the law?” No law means no law broken means no sin. Because – sin is the breaking of the law. If you don’t know about the law, how can you be accused of breaking it? How can you be accused of sinning? Lack of ability (don’t know about the law) means lack of responsibility means lack of accountability means lack of punishment.
The consternation of non-Calvinist comes from the insistent denial by Calvinists of a cause-effect relationship that is clearly taught by the Bible.
Charles,
Thank you for your clarification. However, I assure you that I am in no way defending the Arminian position. I firmly believe that no man has the natural capacity to choose Christ. I also agree that there is no contrast to be made between God’s sovereignty and man’s responsibility. The two are equally true and not in any way contradictory. You need not try to convince me of the correctness of your statements.
When I say that Calvinist look solely at the scriptures that teach man’s inability, I do not mean all Calvinists. Do not get me wrong on that account. I try to avoid the term Calvinist when referring to myself because of the extra baggage that, as you no doubt understand, can hinder my ability to discuss this subject with an Arminian. I do not mean to say that ALL Arminians believe/do this and ALL Calvinists believe/do this. I am simply saying that in my observation, the above mentioned shortcomings are somewhat commonplace among the opposing sides, and that if these shortcomings were to be resolved, I believe that many if not all of the differences between the two standpoints would be resolved.
Thanks again for your input.
Hello Phil,
Beautiful blog!
Let me say first that I don’t assent to the doctrines of grace. I think the Arminianis vs. Calvinism dialogues as they have been led so far, are far too narrow. The very same argumentation patterns are served up over an over again. Nevertheless I think ongoing debates are important and edifying. I also believe in God’s sovereignty but there are many things in Calvinism that don’t quite seem to be adding up. I lately started a new blog committed to providing arguments against the doctrines of grace based on particular scriptural pillars. One of these is Rom. 8:28-30, which you mention. I don’t think this “golden chain” promotes TULIP in any way.
Everyone is welcome to my blogs and to comment. I’m looking forward to debating the doctrines of grace.
Greetings
-a helmet
Phil:
You don’t know how welcome this article is. Because of a lack of good churches in our area, my wife and I have been searching for a long time for a church home. Lately, we’ve kind of taken a break and just met at home and have been studying 1 John for a while.
This past week, however, we decided to attend a local assembly. It meets in what used to be the area mission building. The pastor talked about being dead in sin and dependent on God to be saved at all.
Now, the atmosphere was great because the attendees were very diverse…racially and also because some were from the “new” mission a block or so away. They certainly made room for the poor and even treated them as equals. That was very refreshing.
The only possible “fly in the ointment” (that I haven’t even confirmed yet) was that one person who welcomed us (whom we know from years ago) told us that this church teaches Wesleyanism. Being a calvinist, that bothers me. But you see their attitude and you wonder “Do I draw a line here?”.
Again, I’m not 100 certain that this place *is* Wesleyan in its doctrine, and it is certainly possible that our friend has it wrong. But it was a concern; and a serious one considering how badly we wish to find a decent fellowship.
They had two quotes in the bulletin: One from J.C. Ryle, expounding on how a “redemption” that allows for a “Christian” to live in sin is not a “redemption” taught in Scripture…but also another one from a guy named H.W. Verner who said “There is no position of grace that you cannot fall from…” which would seem to contradict Ryle. So, perhaps, if I understand the Verner quote correctly, they are just a tad confused.
No commentments there yet. We just visited once and if we were to continue I’d have to ask plenty of questions. But I was struggling with this very issue.
Thank you for helping me be a bit more at ease.
Blessings,
Tim