This article includes an introduction to my views concerning the theological system of Calvinism, followed by a table of contents with links to articles on my thoughts regarding specific theological areas of concern or disagreement with Calvinism.
My prayer is that this article will help all of you who have asked me questions or are presently confused regarding biblical issues like election, predestination, sovereignty of God, free choice, faith and works, God’s love, hell, etc.
I am forever grateful to God for the joy of shepherding the fellowship of Trinity Baptist Church.
As a minor1 Calvinist I do not pretend to even entertain the thought that the following comments will solve the age-old debate nor necessarily convert anyone from Calvinism, but rather I only intend to succinctly clarify what I believe concerning areas where I disagree with Calvinism’s interpretations. The reality is that for most of the Christian community, Calvinism proves to be uncompelling. Hence, we love and respect our Calvinist friends, but we do not wish to imbibe at the cisterns of Calvinism, for we believe that they are contaminated with faulty theology and logic.
I have endeavored to lay out my beliefs concerning Calvinism in numerous conversations with Arminians and Calvinists, in writings, and in a series that I preached concerning the subject.2 In this article I am trying to encapsulate my beliefs under specific headings concerning various points where my views would be somewhat different than Calvinists in order to enable those with questions to read the particular point in which they are interested; for example, I have blogged “The Love of God: Calvinism does not measure up” which is also linked to this blog.
Often it seems that some Calvinists think that the reason those like me do not accept Calvinism as the all-sufficient biblical paradigm of Scripture is simply because we are uninformed about its true teaching or we lack the theological acumen or the necessary acuminous intellect to appreciate the enlightening nuances of Calvinism and the inarguable interpretations leveled against any interpretation which strays from the TULIP.3
For me personally, let me say it may well be true that I lack the “theological acumen or the necessary acuminous intellect” to rise to the level of my Calvinist brothers and sisters; moreover, it seems to me that this reality is unfortunately repeatedly born out to me in the daily intercourse of life by such things as not being able to find my own food dish at times; also, those who walk with me along the corridors of Trinity Baptist Church know that I still have difficulty knowing which is the south and which is the north end of the building. Of course, I have only been here eleven years, so I could say just give me time; nevertheless, this point I readily concede for me and me alone; however, I would strongly demur to the same characterization of others who agree with me, for that same deficiency cannot be demonstrated to be true about countless others who do not accept Calvinism’s answers to the puzzles of Scripture.
Furthermore, it is not true of me that my lack of sympathy for the sotereological tenets of Calvinism are due to my unfamiliarity with their positions and their responses to my objections; actually, it is my familiarity4 with the Scripture and the interpretations of them by Calvinists that precipitated and perpetuated my disenchantment with certain aspects of Calvinism. Consequently, regardless of what some may be inclined to say about me, my reasons for not being a Calvinist are that when all things are considered, I do not find the cogency of their biblical and logical explanations compelling.
My position will be labeled by some Calvinists as Arminian, and by most Arminians as Calvinism. However, those that choose to do so merely demonstrate that they are held captive by the overly simplistic and fallacious either/or fallacy, and do not recognize the nuances of my beliefs that preclude me from being consistently either.
If my Calvinist friends will permit, I, being a Baptist, hold to eternal security, total depravity—rightly defined—and other non-Arminian understandings5 concerning such sotereological issues like the atonement of our Lord; therefore my position is more accurately described as Calvinistic but not Calvinism, which I refer to as “minor Calvinism.” Further, none of my statements concerning my sotereological position, or problems with the TULIP, are to be understood or characterized as against Calvinists but rather against the system of Calvinism. For I have great regard, appreciation, and esteem for most Calvinists’ love for God and His word. Further, I owe no small measure of my spiritual growth and knowledge of Scripture to Calvinists.
Let me state clearly, the difference between a Calvinist, an Arminian, and me is not a disbelief in any of the Scripture—I am speaking of we who accept the inerrancy of Scripture—but rather how we weave the tapestry of Scripture together. I must admit that the problem that I see with staunch Calvinists’ or Arminians’ interpretive model is at times uncomfortably close to the hermeneutics of others whose approach to paradoxical Scriptures is to interpret Scriptures that seem contrary to their own system by steps that I am unwilling to sanction6 rather than allowing the simple teaching of Scripture to reign regardless if all can be harmonized by man’s theological system.7
For example, “the mechanical dictation theory” makes the apostles mere keyboards in inscripturating the Bible, thereby disallowing their humanness to be in the Scripture; of course, the other end of the spectrum overemphasizes the humanity of the inspiration process, leaving us with an inspirational fallible human book. The same could be said of extreme views of the virgin birth, making it supernatural to the exclusion of anything natural, or a myth to make the human-born Jesus seem more divine. It is the practice of some throughout history in regards to Christ, the theanthropic man, to emphasize either His deity to the exclusion of or marginalization of His humanity or vice versa.
Calvinists emphasize certain Scriptures that clearly articulate in no uncertain terms God’s part in salvation, but then minimize or obfuscate man’s part, which is articulated with equal lucidity in the Scripture. This is done by either reading verses apart from the rest of revelation as though they stood alone8 or giving what appears to me to be double-talk9 or illogical answers as well as being biblically unbalanced. I am quite aware they would say even worse about my interpretations of Scripture since I believe regeneration is not forced upon the enemies of God and does not precede faith. I have read their comments many times—and at one time actually believed and repeated them—but the fact is, for many who have been Calvinists or seriously considered being in that tradition, as we are as Baptists, we are simply unconvinced.
That Calvinists will disagree with my position is a foregone conclusion since these statements are to succinctly clarify where my sotereological10 position differs from Calvinists and Arminians; hence, their disagreement with the following statements do not demonstrate that my positions are in error; only that we agree that we respectfully disagree. If there were time, their response to my response would be met with a clarification, nuance, or similar response. The point is, I am writing to address those issues where they disagree with those like me, as well as to help those of you who are perplexed by the claims of Calvinism to see how to be biblical without having to be an Arminian or a Calvinist.
I am writing primarily to the flock that God is allowing me to shepherd and whom I love dearly. One day I will give an account for them, something I take very seriously. Within our church, there are both young and mature Christians, and I am writing with both in mind. Further, I am writing about my disagreements with Calvinism at times from a rather theologically technical perspective in order to make sure that I do not misrepresent actual teachings or inevitable conclusions of Calvinism; however, at times I am trying to deal with germane issues in order for others to understand some of the serious consequences, as I see them, of Calvinism; consequently, if one misses my audience at a particular point, he might be inclined to construe an argument as a straw man. However, to the best that I can, I have presented an accurate picture of the teachings from either all, some, or most Calvinists, and this depending on the specific topic I am addressing. I have absolutely no desire to play with straw men or misrepresent my godly comrades. If in fact I have failed in my attempt to be accurate at some point, understanding my audience, I ask your forgiveness, and I am more than happy to correct my unintentional error.
Again, let me reiterate my love, respect, and appreciation for the vast majority of theologians and Christians who wear the name Calvinist; I am indebted to them for all they have taught and still teach me and am honored to serve our Lord Jesus with them.
The format followed in each topic covered is to note several affirmations and disaffirmations regarding different biblical teachings. The following are links to the blogs covering twelve topics regarding Calvinism. At the end of each blog will be a link to the succeeding topic.
The Sovereignty of God: Without the baggage of Calvinism
Predestination and Foreknowledge; Without The Confusion of Calvinism
Double Predestination
Where Did Sin Come From?
The Depravity of Man
Atonement for Sin
The Love of God: Calvinism does not measure up
Grace
World vs. Elect
Faith and Regeneration
Faith and Works
Preaching of the Gospel
- I use the term “Major” Calvinist to include Five Point Calvinists regardless of other differences, .e.g. order of decrees, baptism…and refer to such in this paper simply as “Calvinists” or “Calvinism”. I use the term “minor” to include all other views which hold to one or more of the four points of Calvinism excluding limited atonement. Neither minor nor major Calvinists can be rightly classified as Arminian. The reason I am spending the time to address concerns with Calvinism and not Arminianism is because in Baptist life, questions regarding issues relating to theology are almost always related to whether one agrees or disagrees with Calvinism rather than Arminianism since Baptists, other than those like “Free Will” Baptists are not Arminian in their theology. Further, it is simply imprecise for a Calvinist to dismiss people like me by labeling us Arminian. [↩]
- Search my blog for Determinism, Free Will, Calvinism, Love of God, or listen to messages from 1 Peter 1:1-5, entitled Preservation of the Saints [↩]
- TULIP is an acronym for the five points of Calvinism 1.Total inability 2. Unconditional election 3. Limited atonement 4. Irresistible grace 5. Perseverance of the saints [↩]
- I was classified as a four-point Calvinist without any clarifications for many years, and have and still do respect and study countless Calvinist theologians including Calvin himself. [↩]
- While it is true that some “Reformational Arminians” have an understanding closer to Calvinism regarding issues such as those mentioned as well as others than that of “popular” understandings, my beliefs are far closer to most Calvinists with regard to such [↩]
- An example of this is the work that is done by Calvinists in restricting terms like world, all people, all nations, everyone….in order to bolster support for limited atonement. [↩]
- This in no way implies that I am against “theological systems” or thinking systematically about theology, for my position is quite the contrary, and that is why my system has changed. [↩]
- No one verse can be read or understood apart from the complete revelation of God. Although all who maintain the inerrancy of Scripture would affirm this, our arguments surely seem to minimize it at times. An example would be Acts 2:47 that says, “The Lord was adding to their number day by day those who were being saved.” Should we rightly conclude, from that single verse, that God is the only one who plays a part in the salvation of people and that man plays no part because that verse only speaks of God doing something? Or could we rightly conclude that no one repented or believed the gospel, because that single verse doesn’t say anyone did those things? Could we rightly conclude that no one preached the gospel to those the Lord added to the church, because that one verse says nothing about anyone preaching? The reality is that no single verse or passage explains everything, whether it is John 6:44, 2 Corinthians 4: 3-6 or… The same is true of Acts 2:47. Clearly, John did not believe that regeneration precedes faith. He wrote at the close of his gospel: “But these have been written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you may have life in His name” (John 20:31, italics added). [↩]
- This refers to the way some Calvinists use language that is inconsistent with the tenets of Calvinism in prayers, preaching, witnessing…or that tends to present Calvinism in a softer tone than it really is. This is particularly noticeable when they speak on the love of God, mercy, missions or when they pray…see blog “Faith And Regeneration” especially footnote on “new birth” in the disaffirmation. [↩]
- The section of theology that deals with salvation issues [↩]