HEELCATCHER

Before posting some thoughts on the Calvinism-Arminianism debate, it seems necessary to do two things. 1) Define the terms. And 2) explain why it matters.

First of all, the definitions.

Calvinism follows after the teachings of John Calvin, a French reformer (1509-64) who played an instrumental role in defining the theology of the Reformation. To be more precise, Calvinism specifically focuses on Calvin’s view of God’s saving of humanity. Many Calvinists, while espousing Calvin’s view of salvation, do not hold to his teachings on infant baptism, the sacraments, the church-state union, or the end times.

Calvin, or more accurately his followers, developed five basic beliefs regarding God’s work in salvation. These five beliefs are commonly presented with the acronym, TULIP.

Total Depravity. All of mankind is totally dead in sin. We are corrupt, depraved, rebellious, and completely unable to save ourselves. We are “spiritual corpses” and only God can save us.

Unconditional Election. Before the creation of the world, before any person was created, God predetermined and selected individuals (the elect) to be saved through His Son, Jesus Christ. This selection was not based on any attribute or foreseen faith response in a person but completely on God’s sovereign will.

Limited Atonement. Since God had already predetermined who would be saved, then Christ’s death on the cross was only for the elect.

Irresistible Grace. When God determines to save a person, He will save them. God powerfully bends a person’s will to His own so that no one is able to resist His saving intent.

Perseverance of the Saints. Those who are truly elect will manifest it by continuing in their faith until the end. Once they are saved, they will always be saved and they will demonstrate it by their works.

The one word description often used of Calvinism is “monergism” which literally means “the work of one.” It means that, when it comes to salvation, God works alone. He saves apart from any cooperation, input, or response of man. In fact, God actually must regenerate a person before that person can exercise any faith in Him. So, in effect, a person must be saved before they can exercise the faith that saves them.

Arminianism originated with Jacob Arminius (1560-1609), a Dutch theologian in the Reformed movement who tried to modify several tenets of Calvinism. While he agreed that man was totally sinful and unable to save Himself, Arminius believed that God’s pre-enabling grace, through the Holy Spirit, brought a person to the point where they could receive or resist God’s gracious offer of salvation. Thus, though God took all the initiative, man still had a role in salvation. This view is sometimes summarized as “synergism” which means “to work together.” God takes the initiative and man responds to His initiative in salvation.

Okay, those are the terms. So why does it matter?

For the most part, it doesn’t. Calvinists, Arminians, and Cal-minians (who leave the two doctrines in tension) generally agree on the major tenets of Christianity. God is holy, righteous, sovereign, and loving. Man is a creation of God but also sinful. He cannot save himself. Jesus, God in the flesh, came into the world to seek and to save the lost. Jesus died on the cross to be our righteous substitute, bearing our sin. He rose again from the dead to show His power over sin, death, and Satan. A person is saved from sin by faith alone in Christ alone.

When these details are left in their simplest form, then there is agreement. When they are defined more closely, particularly in the process of salvation “behind the scenes,” then disagreement begins.

I have generally left the debate alone since my college days. Overall, it hasn’t been a big concern in my ministry or with the people in the churches where I have served. But recently Calvinism is making a resurgence. Time Magazine (March 12, 2009)  even listed it as one of the top ten ideas changing the current world. And for the most part, I am glad. When Christians start thinking theologically, it is always a good thing…especially in today’s shallow culture. But, unfortunately, Calvinism can also bring unhealthy debate and division into a church. I have seen it recently in a church I am familiar with which split over issues related to Reformed doctrine.

So my prayer is that by sharing a few cautions and thoughts in the Calvinist-Arminian debate, I can encourage Christians to continue to think deeply about God’s great salvation and also continue to show grace and humility as we seek to comprehend the incomprehensible mind of God.

I have to reveal my hand before getting too far into the Calvinist-Arminian debate. I am biased. My first exposure to Calvinism left a bad taste in my mouth and it still remains to this day.

I was a freshman in Bible college. 450 miles from home. In a new city. Rooming with a bunch of strangers. Coming to grips with college life, homesickness, and learning to do my own laundry. A few days after unpacking my belongings, an upperclassman in my dorm felt it necessary to introduce me to predestination and God’s eternal decree. “You do know that God separated the righteous from the damned before the world even began.” I had no idea what he was talking about. I was still trying to figure out how to separate whites, colors, and darks.

I grew up Presbyterian but remember nothing about it except being bored to tears in church. I have vague memories of catechism class. The old pastor tried to teach us basic theology. My buddy George thought the whole affair was pretty funny. I was trying to take it serious. At one point I asked the biggest question on my pre-adolescent mind…”where did God come from?” The pastor didn’t have an answer so I tuned out the rest.

Later, however, through the changed life of my older brother, I came to an understanding of the gospel of Jesus Christ. I started attending a Baptist church and growing in my faith. I loved church. I enjoyed studying God’s Word. I sensed the Lord calling me into full-time ministry. Off to Bible college I went….eager, excited, naive.

That’s when I met my first evangelist for Calvinism. What else can I say? He turned me off. More than the doctrine itself, I was repelled by the attitude. He savored the chance to drill the young Bible college student with verses that he knew I had no answer for. I wasn’t sure what his purpose was. To convert me, to humiliate me, or to impress me with his knowledge. But whatever his intent, it had the opposite effect in me. I didn’t know what Calvinism was but I was sure I didn’t want to be one.

The next four years of Bible college I spent debating and discussing Calvinism and Arminianism with other budding young theologians in the dorm. While most college students party all night, Bible college students stay up all night arguing over TULIP. (I’ll define that later for those who think we were arguing over flower arrangements.)

Since most of my roommates were Calvinistic, I argued the other side. I ended most conversations saying, “I was predestined to be Arminian so stop fighting God’s eternal decree.” Not the most effective strategy, but it usually ended the conversation and let me go to bed.

So that’s the story behind my inner bias. Of course, I believe we are all biased and slanted to one degree or another. No one approaches a subject, including theology, from a position of total objectivity. Subjective emotion, experience, personality, and giftedness all enter the picture…as well as our self-focused sinful nature.

Only in the Spirit…and from a position of humility and love…can we ever hope to come close to a clearer view of God and His ways. And only in the Spirit can we teach theology to others with the right attitude and motive.

My next post…when I get there…will define the terms. What do I mean by Calvinism? What is Arminianism? That’s probably where I should have started but if you’ve read this far then you are either already familiar with the terms or so bored that you have nothing else better to do than read a blog that you don’t understand.

I am not a Calvinist.

I do not make that statement from a position of antagonism against Calvinism. There are many aspects of Calvinism and Reformed doctrine that I admire, love, and embrace. The strong Calvinist is typically insulated from the heresies of humanism by his emphasis on the absolute sovereignty of God. Thus, it is rare to find a liberal Calvinist who denies the authority of Scripture, the reality of sin, and the identity of Christ. If I had to pick a side in the Calvinist-Arminian debate, I would go with the Calvinist side.

I also do not make that statement from a position of ignorance. I received my doctorate degree from a Reformed seminary. My favorite professor was D.A. Carson. I have heard and studied the Reformed position under the teaching of Reformed teachers. There are no straw men in my arguments against Calvinism. It is a beautiful theological system that explains much of Scripture. I don’t hesitate at all to preach its tenets when it is the best understanding of the text at hand. But, in the final analysis, it is a system that can’t explain all of Scripture. There are some passages that simply push against its walls and keep it from being air tight.

That leads me to my primary concern with Calvinism…and to any overriding system of interpretation be it Arminianism, dispensationalism, charismatic theology, or covenant theology. It is too easy for the system to dictate interpretation rather than vice-versa. That is not to say that all theological systems are created equal. Some seem to gel with the whole counsel of God better than others. But it is to say that there are enough “category busters” in every system to keep us humble. If Bible believing Christians who acknowledge the authority of Scripture, the deity of Christ, and the gospel of grace can differ on an issue, and do so throughout much of church history, then there is a good chance that the truth lies somewhere above our typical horizontal spectrum.

So my hope in the next few weeks is to share a few thoughts on the Calvinist-Arminian debate that may be helpful. And along the way explain why I believe that leaving certain doctrines in tension, particularly this one, is the preferred place to be.