By Stephen Richardson
Popular print media, both religious and secular, have reported the resurgence of Calvinist theology, especially among young Evangelical Christians. Perhaps we ought to review Calvinism”s basic tenets and consider cautions about its implications.
Known generally as Reformed Theology, Calvinism has been a prominent feature of Protestant Christianity since the 16th century. The extent of John Calvin”s influence upon Christian thought is incalculable and cannot be ignored””nor should we desire to overlook him. Both Calvinists and those who are not recognize his stellar mind represented in prodigious literary output and stimulating contributions to Christian theology. We must give Calvin his due.
Bright Intellect
John Calvin (1509″“64) was born in Noyon, France. Groomed from an early age for ecclesiastical calling, he studied the arts in Paris as a prelude for theological study but interrupted that intention to pursue law instead. His intellect was bright and his exposure to education broad, encountering both humanism and Reformation thought. Because of his sympathy with Reformation ideals, he found it necessary to flee France to Switzerland in 1535. He published the first edition of his great work, The Institutes of the Christian Religion, in 1536 with enlarged editions to follow.
Calvin worked to implement the Reformation in Geneva, Switzerland. His attempt to establish theocratic rule drew opposition, but he largely prevailed in his last 14 years of ministry there. During this period, his fame and advocacy of the Reformation beyond Geneva expanded as remarkably as his political power within it. Switzerland, parts of Germany, France, the Netherlands, Scotland, and England felt the considerable impact of his writing and teaching.1
Calvin”s theology articulated in The Institutes eventually morphed into “Calvinistic orthodoxy” by heirs2 who may have been more systematically explicit than he intended. (The TULIP scheme examined below is representative of that orthodoxy.) Though we can cull quotations from The Institutes and Calvin”s commentaries supporting most of the tenets of Calvinism codified in later Reformed creeds, many scholars question whether Calvin would have agreed to the more rigidly defined doctrines of divine determinism or limited atonement.3
Strict orthodox Calvinism won the day. It was inscribed in the Canons of the Synod of Dort (1618-19) designed to refute and condemn the followers of Dutch theologian Jacobus Arminius. These Arminians4 were Calvinists who objected to the hard-edged orthodox view of divine predestination and its assertion, among others, that Jesus Christ did not die for all the sinners of the world, but only for those unconditionally elected by God.5 Later, the Westminster Confession of Faith in 1647 also defined and decreed the prevailing orthodox Calvinism in England.6 These major creeds include the five points of Calvinism reviewed below.
Calvinism was embedded in the Puritan ethos and thus represented in North America from the inception of the colonies. The famed educator/revivalist Jonathan Edwards popularized Calvinism”s appeal. The religious environment of the United States has never been without the strong witness of Reformed Theology.
However, there is a wide spectrum of opinion about orthodox Calvinism in the Reformed tradition. A number of its adherents have rejected its inflexibility, claiming it does not adequately represent either the tradition or John Calvin himself.
But the resurgence of Calvinism is not among its moderate advocates. It is the bold, no punches pulled, take-it-as-it-is-or-leave-it brand of orthodox Calvinism that has burgeoned. Citing journal articles and studies as well as his own experience as an educator, theologian Roger Olson has traced the fortunes of American Reformed Theology from mid-20th-century malaise among Calvinists failing to capture the hearts of their youth to the end-of-the-century revival of zealous TULIP Calvinism.7 He cites many factors resulting in the revival. Chief among them: restlessness in serious young Christians fed a diet of bland moralism by the church instead of a dynamic celebration of God”s glory.8 The restlessness was complemented by the emergence of some remarkably able communicators who advocated orthodox Calvinism and garnered admiration among the seekers. Olson highlights R. C. Sproul, Michael Horton, Paul Helm, and especially John Piper.9
Willed by God
The five essential points of creedal Calvinism are summarized by the familiar acronym TULIP. This is not a caricature of Calvinism, but Calvinists” own distilling and popularizing of its salient convictions. We must address the foundational supposition of Calvinism before reviewing the doctrines represented by TULIP. Whenever we encounter the witness of Scripture, we likely focus upon an attribute of God we deem essential. That is, God simply cannot be God unless he possesses the supreme quality we have identified.
I believe Calvinism”s essential conviction about God is God”s unrestrained exercise of sovereign power. At first glance, we might be comfortable with that. After all, who can object to such a self-evident affirmation? Yet imagine the implications of this assertion. Can we avoid the conclusion that all of the cosmos is subject to divine determinism? Roger Olson describes divine determinism this way:
[The] absolute, meticulous planning, willing and controlling by God such that there is in nature no “maverick molecule” (contingency, chaos) and in history “no divine risk.” Whatever happens in nature and history is completely, exhaustively willed by God and not merely permitted by God.10
I believe the Calvinist leaders identified above would subscribe to this statement. This means that anything done by any person is exhaustively decreed by God and cannot be otherwise. Did God have purpose for our sin? Is that part of his decree? Even our sin has a significant role in fulfilling God”s purpose of manifesting his glory. Jarring as it sounds, many of Calvinism”s proponents affirm that conclusion.
As we shall see, each of the five pillars of Calvinism is necessary when we start with the presupposition of God”s unrestrained exercise of power over all things, and each has challenging implications.
Total Depravity
This tenet asserts that fallen humanity is so thoroughly corrupt that every aspect of persons is directed toward and desiring nothing but evil; we cannot of our own powers please God. God foreordained Adam”s sin and withheld from him the grace necessary to avoid it. Once Adam disobeyed, every person to follow was also corrupted, not by choice but by birth.
Most Christians, whether Calvinist or Arminian in sentiment, affirm humanity has been corrupted by sin. As a result, we are helpless to rescue ourselves, and utterly dependent upon God”s intervening grace. But at this point, the two ways part dramatically.
Arminians contend that God has provided that necessary grace by the Spirit through the gospel. They believe the power of sin has been broken by the cross and resurrection of Jesus. That grace enlightens us, enabling us to choose repentance toward God in faith.
Calvinists deny that the gospel in itself is sufficient for one”s salvation; elect persons require further miraculous divine intervention for salvation. We shall return to this in consideration of the “I” in TULIP.
Unconditional Election
This tenet says that God”s selection of certain sinners among humanity for rescue from condemnation has no other reason than his inscrutable, eternal decree. (Notice how total depravity protects unconditional election by preventing any nonelect person from recognizing and responding to truth.) There is no merit in the elect as condition for their salvation. Calvinists are so adamant about this they deny God”s foreknowledge of persons” actions has any bearing upon his selection of them. We are not, of course, allowed to ascribe any arbitrariness or injustice to God, since the will of God is by definition good.
An inescapable implication of the unconditional election of some to salvation is the choice of God to leave all others helpless and bound for condemnation. This “double predestination” acknowledges that before creation, God determined who would share eternity with him and who would be separated. God created countless persons with the intention of sending them to Hell, and this for his glory.
(This is not written facetiously. Calvin himself, creeds built upon his theology, and proponents of TULIP Calvinism have acknowledged that persons are in Hell to the glory of God because they thereby serve his eternal purpose and demonstrate his righteous justice.)
Calvinists often find themselves in the awkward position of arguing that God is wholly just in this double predestination. Those destined for condemnation receive only the just retribution for their sins (despite the fact that God willed the sin and assured it). The elect rejoice in the favor of God knowing God”s selection of them is right because he ordered it.
We are told we cannot question God”s refusal to intervene on behalf of all his image-bearers (though we are assured he loves them deeply) since it is part of God”s perfect will. We cannot help but notice, however, the great chasm between that supposed expression of God”s love and the one mediated to us in the incarnate Word.
Limited Atonement
This tenet asserts Jesus” atoning sacrifice was not for all persons, but limited to the elect. This pillar has caused the most debate among devotees of Calvin”s theology. Students of Calvin cannot find any statement in his body of writing affirming this doctrine, and many Calvinists have rejected it as contrary to explicit statements in the New Testament.
Yet notice how this seems logically necessary given deterministic presuppositions. If the number of the elect is certain and the nonelect cannot change their status, why would God spill the blood of Christ for those in futility? (This presumes, of course, that persons cannot choose the offer of salvation; if persons may choose to obey the Son for redemption, then God would surely provide the way even if some reject the sacrifice.)
Among possible objections to this doctrine, note one in particular. It renders our efforts in evangelism disingenuous. In light of unconditional election and limited atonement, how might we genuinely proclaim the gospel on occasions where nonelect persons might be present? Can we honestly announce that a loving creator has gone to extraordinary lengths to save persons from sin and implore them to believe in the Son of God who died for them when Jesus might not have died for them?
Irresistible Grace
Elect persons are not regenerated simply because they encounter and are enlightened by the gospel. Calvinism says God must still intervene miraculously to place faith within them. Calvinists claim that one with a divinely softened heart (overcoming depravity) can make an uncoerced decision to repent for salvation. But because of God”s decree about who are elect, elect persons cannot resist this miraculous grace. This seems to be a choice without an option, a semantic and practical impossibility.
We must notice the way this tenet defines faith. Faith is not the result of encountering evidence (apostolic testimony) about the Son of God and then trusting and obeying him. Calvinism says faith is a capacity infused into an otherwise hopelessly darkened soul. In Calvinism, our response is not to exercise our human capacity for faith; it is to act upon faith imparted by God. But we must ask, “Why does the New Testament command us to believe?”
Perseverance of the Saints
This doctrine is popularly styled “once saved, always saved,” or “once in grace, always in grace.” Since God alone with no human agency determines persons” eternal fates, we cannot be other than what God has decreed. If we are the happy beneficiaries of God”s decree of election, then we shall be eternally his. We choose neither to enter nor opt out of relationship with God.
This perseverance of the saints is a logical element of the Calvinistic system, but not a feature of New Testament doctrine. The constant, urgent warnings of the book of Hebrews, for example, make clear that the possibility of apostasy is a danger to be reckoned with. That does not mean our walk with God is at all tentative. Historically, God has proved himself to be longsuffering with his covenant partners, meeting our repentance with restoration. We are confident and secure in God”s grace, but we do not presume upon it. It is foolhardy to claim a promise that apostasy is impossible when we are offered many warnings to the contrary.
Earlier I suggested that as we apprehend the nature of God from revelation recorded in Scripture, we choose to emphasize and protect aspects of God”s nature that seem to define his essence. In other words, without this feature, God cannot be revered as God. I believe Calvinists have distilled God”s essence to unrestrained exercise of sovereign power for the sake of his glory. As we have seen, defending the implications of this choice is challenging.
Loved by God
I do not identify the essence of God as his unrestrained exercise of power. As I survey the biblical record, one feature about God stands out above all the rest””his restraint of exercise of power for the purpose of relationship with his image-bearers.
I have observed over the years that most students understand intuitively that genuinely loving interpersonal relationships do not result from coercion, control, or manipulation by one of the partners. This is confirmed by further reflection as they explore partnership with God graciously offered and freely chosen. The partnership is not an equal one, of course. But it is a partnership in which God honors our humanity enough to value our free embrace of his Son and the resulting wholesome fellowship.
A Calvinist would object. “If I am free to choose relationship with God, haven”t I claimed some merit for my salvation and established cause for boasting?” The very question is appalling to me. As a broken sinner, helpless to devise the means to avert my condemnation, I reached out to accept God”s marvelous deliverance. This is nothing to boast about. Far from boasting, I am humbled by evidence of the serving, saving love of such a heavenly Father.
Do I have any challenging implications to address by supposing I am free to choose relationship with God or not? Yes. I must wrestle with the conclusion that God has taken risks in creating a being in his image and does not always get what he desires. Dilemmas indeed. But I find it much more palatable (not to mention more consistent with the Word) to live with these conundrums than with the haunting prospect that God”s righteous purpose and deep love for humanity are expressed in creating countless persons for no possible destiny but eternal separation from him.
________
1F. L. Cross and E. A. Livingstone, eds., The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, 3rd ed. (Oxford: Oxford University Press), 266, 67. (This is but one of many useful resources providing brief synopses of John Calvin”s career.)
2Men such as Peter Vermigli, Theodore Beza, and Francois Turretin are not as familiar to casual observers of Reformation history, but were significant leaders nonetheless.
3Volume III of Justo Gonzales” A History of Christian Thought (1975 edition, published by Abingdon Press) contains a fairly concise account of post-Calvin Reformed theology in the chapter entitled “Reformed Theology After Calvin,” 242-72).
4The immediate sympathizers of Arminius in Holland were known as Remonstrants.
5Ibid., 254-62.
6Philip Schaff, ed., David Schaff, rev., The Evangelical Protestant Creeds, Vol. III of The Creeds of Christendom, 6th ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1985) 581-97 (Dort) and 600-73 (Westminster).
7Roger E. Olson, Against Calvinism (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2011), 15-22. Olson”s book is an excellent resource for those desiring a detailed but accessible description of Calvinism with a thoughtful, critical response.
8Ibid., 17.
9Ibid., 18-21.
10Roger E. Olson, The Mosaic of Christian Belief (Downers Grove: InterVarsit Press, 2002).
Stephen Richardson is chair of the Biblical Studies Department and associate professor at Pacific Christian College of Ministry and Biblical Studies, Fullerton, California.
First of all, thank you for your August 19th, 2012 edition of the Christian Standard on “Living with Calvin”™s Legacy.” Thanks, also, to Steve Richardson and Tom Lawson for their insightful articles. It is encouraging to see that theology is not “verboten” in your publications. When the average lay person doesn”™t have a clue about what they really believe, this edition has done a great job in providing a brief introduction to Calvinism.
I was born and reared in the Disciples of Christ denomination for most of my early years as a Christian. As a musician, I was able to use my talents, from college and onward, in many different churches and denomina- tions. I was exposed to numerous teachings in theology and styles of worship, from charismatic and “spirit led” to very formal liturgical styles, and everything in between.
Some time later, I wanted to serve the Lord in a fuller way, and I became a bi-vocational pastor in a small Free Methodist church. During the studies and training leading up to my assignment, I learned much about Weslyan-Arminian theology and the great legacy of faith following that tradition.
In the late 1990″™s, I was introduced to Calvin”™s theology, which was truly a shock to my background and pre- vious training! It forced me to think through every foundational belief upon which I had built my Arminian theological training. Through all the details, i.e. TULIP and hymns, which were briefly highlighted in this pub- lication, I had to wrestle with these and deeper theological questions.
In the end, I learned that it”™s most important to remember that whether Arminian or Calvinist, we are all part of God”™s family. And as part of God”™s family, we need to handle our discussions and disagreements with great charity and understanding for one another. My wife and I have attended our community Church of Christ for nearly 25 years; and we have the highest regard for our pastor, elders, and church family.
Once again, thanks for your publication, and specifically this edition. By the way, I”™m a Calvinist – right down to the last “maverick molecule.”
In Christ”™s Love, Dan Farmer
Thank you for your article on Calvinism by Stephen Richardson. In reading Richardson”™s summary of Calvinism, I was reminded of the great fallacy of building a theological system on human reason and logic rather than the Word of God. If this is indeed the basis of Calvinism, it is doomed to failure. However, the author did not interact with the Scriptural basis of the teachings of Calvinism and, in doing so, did not present Calvinism in a fair light. The summary of Calvinism given in the article may be in line with Roger Olson”™s analysis (I have not read Olson), but it is not a fair representation of the position taught by John Piper (whom the article states is an “especially” noteworthy proponent of Calvinism).
I understand that the space constraints of a publication such as yours may restrict in depth analysis, but I would hope that in future articles Scriptural texts would be examined and tested and not mere philosophical formulations.
Respectfully submitted,
Scott Gassoway
Teaching Pastor
You have grossly misrepresented Calvanism, reading it through your own strong lens.
This is, in fact, one of the most accurate and fair-minded analysis of Calvinism I’ve seen. If you are a Calvinist, you can’t have it both ways. When you look at the fundamental tenets of Calvinism it inevitably leads to the TULIP position and the conclusions of this author. If this is a GROSS misrepresentation I would be glad to hear Robin and Scott’s refutation of it. Or perhaps they are not really Calvinists at all.
I observe that it’s true that Calvinism is gaining adherents even in free churches of my acquaintance. Baptists are Calvinists. Teaching that seekers are saved without baptism into Christ is Baptist and Calvinistic. It’s clear that Jesus commissioned men to tell others about Him and to baptize those who believed His gospel. The “great commission” disputes Calvin’s doctrines, for it implies that all men should hear the gospel and that all men are free to obey the gospel and as Peter puts it, to save themselves by that obedience. Acts 2:38 spells out clearly what seeking sinners must do to be saved and receive God’s Spirit within. I write about this at length in my book, RAISED INTO NEW LIFE WITH CHRIST, available from amazon.com or available for a $20 donation from Mission Outreach Publications, P O Box 265, Joplin, MO 64802-0265. Calvinism is not Christian. The article kindly says so and it’s right. Sinners are free to turn away from sin and obey the gospel and be saved. It’s a pity that some think so deeply that they fail to see simple truths which would save them. Aren’t they looking in the wrong places for God’s wisdom? I think they are.
Many years ago I witnessed a terrible sight – a heart turning to stone. A 12-year-old boy’s father had been murdered. Well-meaning people sought to comfort him by telling him that this was God’s will, and he had to accept it as the best thing for him and his mother. I desperately wanted to get to that young man and tell him that this was not God’s will. Evil men slashed his father’s throat! God may not have prevented it – but He certainly did not prompt it! I wish those who think doctrine doesn’t matter or that we should not argue over things like Calvinism/Arminianism could have seen that child’s face. In that moment in his young life, he was both fatherless and Fatherless. He would have given anything to have his father back – but he wanted nothing to do with God.
Christian Fatalism: everything happens for a purpose in the best or worst of all possible worlds is not that far removed from pagan mythology, i.e. we are playthings of Zeus and the other gods. Of course, it is easier to explain away all bad things as God’s will, but it certainly isn’t honest or biblical. I hear it all the time, you are here because God wants you here—so if I leave that means God doesn’t want me here, but there..Or I flip a coin….or if there is a particularly egregious sinner in the congregation, God wants him/her here?…or is this a test to see if we believe in church discipline?…..the absurdity is almost comical if it weren’t so tragic, that so many are deceived by contemporary “religious” thought.
Thanks to Stephen Richardson for his concise article on Calvinism. We recently attempted a short study on Calvanism and Arminianism in our Bible school class at SRCC (Nova Scotia.) Mark Elley remarked that this was a complicated topic and that we would only touch on the key points. The class was stimulating although I must admit that some people in the class might rather have studied Leviticus!
This article helped me understand the topic more clearly and was a fine addition to the teaching which I had received. It’s good to see that Christian Standard still dares to say what it believes.
I like the new format although I must admit that I thought Paul S. Williams should have been given 4 pages per issue!
all of this is MAN-centered…no bible verses anywhere to support any of these claims. Pathetic arguement at best. You are looking at this from purely an emotional man centered response. Putting God into your box of who you want Him to be, not letting Scripture tell us who He is. I used to be an Arminian for many years, until one day I started reading the Bible from begining to end as a “test” to see if I could find where God acted Sovereignly over His creation…I had highlighted almost all of my bible!!! There is so much if you look, really look! Here are just a few verses: 1 Peter 1:4-5, Acts 4, Romans 9, John 6:36-42, Acts 13:48. Ephesians 1, John 3:2-5, John 10:29
And Yes, as a Calvanist I go out evangelizing because I do not know who the elect are. I preach the Gospel to this dying world. I would hope you would allow a response from a Calvanist so your readers can make up their own mind using the Word of God for the support!