Theological Determinism - Calvinism

       Some of the major theological "variations" are not simply the result of "interpretation" differences, but are rooted in philosophical assumptions that force people to these various interpretations.  One of these major “forks” in the theological path concerns the teachings of John Calvin and how to understand divine sovereignty and human freedom.  Although I was raised in a Calvinistic religious tradition, my reading of Scripture raised numerous questions concerning the Calvinistic view.  I have found numerous theological writers who embrace Calvinism and present it as though it is "what the Bible says," rather than a philosophical system.  After giving it some thought, I decided to collect the explanations of various points of Calvinism from the numerous sections into one introductory summary so that the reader will be familiar with the issues to begin with. 

The Medieval Worldview

        None of us comes to our ideas purely by studying the evidences.  Rather, all of us are affected by the flow of history as it creates a surrounding culture of ideas and pressures that influence us.  Thus, all of us start out with some assumptions that we have picked up from our parents, friends, religious influences and experiences, and personal thoughts.

       The Medieval worldview that produced the Reformers had been simmering for centuries, with many philosophical and historical “herbs and spices” added to the soup.  Biblical Christianity had survived Roman persecution and had gradually become centered in Rome (Western/Latin) and Constantinople (Eastern/Greek).  Through Scholastic movement (800-1300 AD) re-introduced the Western Church to the Greek philosophers and these ideas were intentionally blended with Biblical and traditional Roman theology to produce the Medieval worldview that was spread through a growing number of European Universities during the Renaissance (1200-1600 AD).  Aristotle was the source of the geocentric cosmology (later opposed by Copernicus and Galileo), and fixed-species biology (later opposed by Wallace and Darwin).  Plato advocated a dualism in which matter was viewed as inherently evil, providing roots to the later Augustinian doctrine of “original sin” and “total depravity.”  Another ancient Greek notion, that I believe lies behind Calvinism, is that Zeus had issued an all-encompassing decree that determined everything that would occur.

       The Roman Bishops, claiming to hold Peter’s Apostolic office, gained power until the Papacy reached its pinnacle with Innocent III (1198-1216 AD) - claiming sovereignty over the church and world.  Power and corruption eventually brought on a violent reformation (1520-1648 AD) and it was in the midst of this that John Calvin entered the fray.  His position on Divine sovereignty had Greek philosophical roots and also was developed as a reaction to claims of Papal sovereignty.  Later, a Calvinistic theology professor, Jacobus Arminius, would conclude that Calvin had “reacted” too hard to Papal claims and had distorted the teachings of Scripture in the opposite direction.  Growing up in a semi-Calvinistic Presbyterian home, this writer came to a similar conclusion.

The Philosophy of Calvinism

        John Calvin (right) was born in Noyon, 58 miles NE of Paris on July 10, 1509.  His father had arranged ecclesiastical income for him before his twelfth birthday.  He entered the University of Paris in August, 1523 to study Philosophy and dialectics.  Although his father wanted him to study Theology, a quarrel with the Noyon cathedral chapter led him to turn to the study of Law.  In his law studies at the University of Orleans, Calvin showed no interest in the religious questions of his age - he was simply an earnest humanist.  From contact with the theologies of Jacque Le Fevre and an "experience" in which the Scriptures "spoke to him," Calvin became a religious man, although he was never ordained.  This experience came somewhere between publication of his "Commentary on Seneca's Treatise on Clemency" (Spring, 1532) and early 1534.  His systematic Law background was employed in his religious thought, which was heavily influenced by Augustine (heavily influenced by Plato), Martin Luther, and Butzer.

       Calvin's major theological premises had much to do with the times he lived in.  The Renaissance had stimulated philosophy and learning, the Papacy (reaching its peak in Innocent III; 1198-1216) had claimed earthly sovereignty over the souls of men, and various secular rulers were willing to support reformers who could help to justify the break with Rome.  With an emphasis shifting from Rome to the Bible, men like Calvin were finding that God and His Word were more sovereign than the Bishop of Rome and such discoveries often take men to an opposite extreme.  For Calvin, the foundational presupposition became the "absolute sovereignty of God" and I think the Greek concept of absolute use of power to control everything influenced his conceptualization of this.  While the philosophy is Calvin's, the five-point "TULIP" summary that many now associate with Calvinism was actually defined in response to another five-point summary of doctrine, formulated by men who were rejecting and opposing Calvinistic theology - the Arminian Remonstrantia (more on this later).

       In Calvin's thinking, enough knowledge comes by nature to leave man without excuse, but adequate knowledge comes only through the Scriptures.  As originally created, man was good and capable of obeying God's will.  But, after the Fall, man became absolutely incapable of goodness.  Salvation is brought about by the Holy Spirit, who works when/how/ where He will, creating repentance and faith and, thus, man is unable to initiate, resist, or in any positive way promote or pursue his own conversion.  The reason why some are saved and others lost is entirely determined by a sovereign divine choice (an original sovereign decree).  Civil government has the divinely-appointed task of fostering the church, protecting it from false doctrine, and punishing offenders whose crimes require punishment. 

The Marriage of Theology and Politics in Geneva

        In Geneva (1537), a series of Calvin's recommendations were submitted to the Little Council.  Two of these items were monthly administration of the Lord's Supper and, for better "preparation" for the Lord's Supper, the city government should appoint certain persons for each quarter of the city who would assist ministers in "reporting the unworthy" for discipline.  Public opposition to Calvin's creed and restrictions on the Lord's Supper brought a vote of the Council of Two Hundred in January, 1538 that the Lord's supper should be refused to no one.  This destroyed Calvin's intended mode of discipline.  The opposition won the next election and, when Calvin and Farel refused to comply, they were banished from Geneva on April 23, 1538.

       After a party friendly to Calvin's views won the city election, Calvin and Farel returned to Geneva in September of 1541.  John Calvin then influenced the institution of a religious government which controlled Geneva's education, justice, and religious life.  While not an actual office-holder, Calvin's theology was a "big-stick" in the community.  The Consistory (a council of pastors and elders) imposed strict moral standards on Geneva: forbidding card-playing and dancing, but making church attendance compulsory.  When Jerome Hermes Bolsec differed with him on the doctrine of predestination, Calvin took his case before the city government (October, 1551).  He managed to get Bolsec banished, although there were a number of others who did not agree with Calvin's theology.  From this point on, "predestination" seems to have been stressed more.  While opposing Rome's "heavy hand" toward theological dissenters, Geneva did the same - Jacques Gruet was executed in 1547 for blasphemy and atheism and Michael Servetus was burned on October 27, 1553 for unorthodox views on Christ's nature and attempted sedition.

       Calvin was the first Protestant scholar to write a "systematic" theology, which he did in his Institutes of the Christian Religion (1559).  While the "Institutes" reveal the mind of a Lawyer trying to write philosophical theology in praise of Augustine, it is hard to nail Calvin down on some points because he seems to say opposite things on the same subject in different places, depending on what he is trying to prove.  Calvinists who write books about "Calvinism" seem to have the same problem, as they differ among themselves as much as he did with himself.  He was more radical against Roman Catholicism than other reformers, calling the Mass "a bag of the Devil's tricks."  He and Luther differed on the emphasis: Luther emphasized personal conversion, while Calvin emphasized social and governmental control by which man's life can be regulated.  Luther would reform individuals and thus reform society, while Calvin would start by controlling government and thus reform individuals.  Luther was emotionally involved with reform, while Calvin was safe in Geneva and was more the detached philosopher.  Concerning the Calvinistic system, church historian Philip Schaff has this to say,

 The Calvinistic system . . . its fundamental defect of confining the saving grace of God and the atoning work of Christ to a small circle of the elect, and ignoring the general love of God to all mankind (John 3:16).  It is a theology of Divine sovereignty rather than Divine love; . . . Arminianism is a reaction against scholastic Calvinism.^[1]

 The philosophical/theological system known as "Calvinism" spread into France through the Huguenots, into the Netherlands by Guido de Bres and Philip van Marnix and was established in Scotland by John Knox.  Calvinism came to the "new world" as it entered America through the Puritans, Presbyterians, and New England Congregationalists. 

Dutch Calvinism Eliminates its Theological Rival

       The church historian, Williston Walker,^[2] tells us that the Dutch, while known for "hard-headedness," have also produced men with irenic spirits.  One of these was concerned with softening the sharp creedal definitions and intolerance of scholastic Calvinism in Holland - Dirck Coornhert (1522-1590).  A professor of theology at Leyden was appointed (1589) to reply to Coornhert's views and to defend the "supralapsarian" position against two ministers of Delft.  The theologian selected to reply to Coornhert and defend "supralapsarianism" was Jacobus Arminius (right) and, as he studied the questions involved, he came to doubt the whole notion of unconditional predestination by sovereign decree!  It appeared to him that man had been granted responsible freedom.  Thus, a controversy arose over Arminius' views and Coornhert was forgotten.

       After Arminius' death, advocates of Arminius' position arose in the court preacher Johan Wtenbogaert (1557-1644) and one of Arminius' pupils who became theology professor at Leyden, Simon Episcopius (1538-1643).  At the instigation of the eminent Dutch statesman, Johan van Oldenbarneveldt (1547-1619), they drew up a statement in 1610 of their faith called the Remonstrantia.  Hugo Grotius (1583-1645), the founder of international law, was also a supporter of the Arminian view.  The five articles of the Remonstrantia are as follows.  First, divine predestination is conditioned upon a divine foreknowledge of man's faith and perseverance.  Second, Christ died for all men, on condition of their faith and repentance.  Third, Man is unable to attain saving faith without regeneration through the Holy Spirit.  Fourth, grace is indispensable at every step of the spiritual life, but it does not work irresistibly.  Finally, the regenerate are able through the assistance of grace to overcome all temptations.

       Unfortunately, the issue did not remain a question of theology, but became entangled with political rivalries in the Netherlands.  Calvinism was favored by the Stadholder Maurice (1588-1625), who also held nationalist political convictions, while the Remonstrants tended to support the "states rights" view.  Maurice overthrew the "states rights" party of the Province of Holland, headed by Oldenbarneveldt, with a coup d'etat in July of 1618.  Oldenbarneveldt was beheaded and Grotius imprisoned.  Having swept away the political opposition, they next moved to eliminate the theological party of their opponents.  The states-general called a national Synod and it met at Dortrecht from November 13, 1618 to May 9, 1619.  Foreign countries were represented at this Synod, which was the largest Synod of the Reformed Churches except for the Westminster Assembly.  The Arminians were invited, but as defendants rather than members.  Outnumbered 2 to 1 and unable to vote, the Arminians were officially declared "heretics."  The Synod defined the five-point "TULIP" in response to the five-point Remonstrantia and Calvinism came to be summarized under the following five items: Absolute Predestination, Limited Atonement, Total Depravity and Absolute Inability of man, Irresistible Grace, and Perseverance of the Saints.  The decision of the Synod of Dort was established by law as the official doctrine of the State Church of the Netherlands and Arminians were persecuted until 1625.  Calvinism is the accepted doctrinal basis of the Reformed Church.  It forms the basis of the Westminster Confession and the Heidelberg Catechism.  Philip Schaff also offered an appraisal of this conflict, 

In the beginning of the 17th century, Arminianism rose as a necessary and wholesome reaction against scholastic Calvinism, but was defeated in the Synod of Dort, 1619, which adopted the five knotty canons of unconditional predestination, limited atonement, total depravity, irresistable grace, and the perseverance of saints.  The Dutch Reformed Church in the United States still holds to the Canons of Dort.  But Arminianism, though temporarily expelled, was allowed to return to Holland after the death of Maurice, and gradually pervaded the national Church.  It largely entered the Church of England under the Stuarts.  It assumed new vigor through the great Methodist Revival, which made it a converting and missionary agency in both hemispheres, and the most formidable rival of Calvinism in the Anglo-American Churches.^[4] 

The Doctrines of Calvinism Today

        I was never formally taught the doctrine of Calvinism, although I did grow up with a Presbyterian background.  On the other hand, I was also never formally taught the Arminian viewpoint.  My own serious study of Scripture began in my early twenties and I had only a Bible to read.  However, as I came into contact with the notions of Calvinism, I tended to disagree with its concepts and definitions on the simple basis that they just didn't seem to reflect the ideas I had gradually formed from reading the Bible.  When I encountered the Arminian viewpoint in a Church History class, I readily saw that Arminius was on the same road as I and, if I had to choose one system or the other as the better formulation of what the Bible is saying, I would be more comfortable in the Arminian camp.  From my own background, I questioned whether there were any staunch Calvinists around, but it didn't take long until I found them held by a Calvinistic Baptist in-law and widespread in various literature.  These folks are quite confident that Calvinism is the Biblical viewpoint, as the following quotation indicates,

"Calvinism . . . is the theology of the Bible viewed from the perspective of the Bible."^[5]

        Millard Erickson has written several theology books in use in various American Christian Colleges and Seminaries and he holds a clearly Calvinistic viewpoint, 

God has from the beginning, from all eternity, had an inclusive plan encompassing the whole of Reality and extending even to the minor details of life.^[6]

 It is not the case, then, that God determines that what we are going to do will come to pass, nor does He choose to eternal life those who he foresees will believe.  Rather, God’s decision has rendered it certain that every individual will act in a particular way.^[7]

        As you will see, there are a few verses that can be cited to give apparent support to the Calvinistic viewpoint.  David’s comment in Psalm 51:5 could be universalized to make it appear that all humans are “sinners from the womb.”  John 6:44 sounds like only those “drawn by the Father” will believe and come to Jesus.  John 15:16 is cited as evidence that God’s plan does not involve any meaningful choices on the part of human individuals.  Acts 13:48 sounds like only those “already appointed” believe the message and Acts 16:14 could suggest that God has to “open individual hearts” before they can believe.  Romans 9:11-24 is often cited as proving that God chooses to save some and destroy with out any element of choice on their part.  2Timothy 2:25 sounds like it is only those to whom God “grants repentance” who will actually demonstrate it.

       However, is the “deterministic” interpretation the best/correct for one for these passages?  And how should these passages be understood in the light of everything else in the Bible, especially passages which contradict the deterministic explanation?  All sorts of ideas can sound “Biblical” if only selected passages are cited and given a particular interpretive “twist,” without counter-balancing truth considered.  So, let’s examine the major premise and five pillars of Calvinism. 

The "Absolute Sovereignty" of God

        Many of the ancient Greeks believed that the "total exercise of power" was the primary and essential quality of deity.  This, the idea that an all-powerful God would let His own son for rebellious creatures, is what Paul was referring to when he noted that the Gospel seemed like “foolishness” to the Gentiles (1Cor. 1:23).  Of course, if God is totally responsible for everything that occurs, then the natural corollary of this is that man is not truly responsible for his own choices and actions.  Although Greek philosophy had infiltrated theological circles for centuries, Calvin had another reason for adopting this notion - to counteract the claims of sovereignty over human life coming from the Papal throne in Rome.  The need to re-emphasize the sovereignty of God is exactly where John Calvin began his reasoning.^[8] 

The doctrine of election is but a part of the much broader Biblical doctrine of God's absolute sovereignty . . . that all events, both small and great, come about as the result of God's eternal decree.^[9]

 Here is the crux of the issue - Calvin's doctrine of "absolute sovereignty" and an "eternal decree"^[10] which determines all things.  It is here that the Greco-Renaissance roots of Calvinistic philosophy betray themselves, for this view closely parallels the Stoic view of Zeus as a universal mind and will which had determined all things, thus making every man’s choices and actions externally fixed according to his "destiny."  With such a starting point, Calvinists are already prejudiced against any view that gives man any responsibility in election.  What is unfortunate here is that John Calvin was right in re-emphasizing the sovereignty of God over the claims of the papacy, but he was wrong in the definition of sovereignty that he used and we will consider this further as we move into the “covenant” study.  The "sovereignty/human free-will" struggle has its early roots in Plato, Stoicism, and Augustine, but the emotional "heat" arose after Calvinism became the dogmatic and intolerant view of the "state churches" of the Netherlands and Scotland.

The "TULIP" Acrostic

        In reaction to the Arminian Remonstrantia and its assertion that election is rooted in God's foreknowledge, that Christ's death provided atonement for all who would accept it by faith, that grace is essential but can be resisted, and that it is possible to fall from grace, Calvinism eventually responded by producing its own five-point summary of belief.

       Total Depravity declares that, with the first sin or "Fall" in Eden, mankind was spiritually damaged in emotions, will, intellect, and conscience.  Man's will is in bondage to sin and he is unable to respond to God's offer of grace on his own power to believe, repent, or obey.  More will said about this in a later chapter concerning "original sin," but the belief is that, 

the sinner is so spiritually bankrupt that he can do nothing pertaining to his salvation^[11]

        Unconditional election asserts that God, in an original all-encompassing decree, determined who would be saved or lost by his own sovereign decision.  Thus, people were "unconditionally" elected for salvation long ago by God and salvation is not "conditioned" upon any human choice or response.

The doctrine of election declares that God . . . chose to save some and to exclude others . . . not determined by, or conditioned upon, anything that men would do.^[12]

 If God chose some to save and some to condemn without any connection between what an individual thinks or does - because, as they say, all are totally depraved and incapable of seeking or obeying God - then how do you explain those who "sought God/did good/pleased God, such as Abel and Seth (Genesis 4), Enoch (Genesis 5), Noah (Genesis 6), Abraham (Genesis 12, 15), Solomon (1Kings 3:5-10)?  The Calvinist would say that God miraculously planted the "faith" or "pleasing request" within them.  If that is so, then questions have to arise about the justice of God as He praises and condemns various human actions and roars against and condemns others - when He is manipulating the whole thing!

       Limited Atonement concludes that, since God has already selected the “elect,” Christ's atoning death was for them alone, not the whole world. 

Christ did not die simply to make it possible for God to pardon sinners.  Neither does God leave it up to sinners as to whether or not Christ's work will be effective. | The gospel invitation extends a call to salvation to everyone who hears its message . . . But this outward general call, extended to the elect and non-elect alike, will not bring sinners to Christ. . . Therefore, the Holy Spirit in order to bring God's elect to salvation, extends to them a special inward call in addition to the outward call contained in the gospel message. | This special call is not made to all sinners but is issued to the elect only! | The application of salvation is all of grace and is accomplished solely through the almighty power of God.^[13]

 According to Calvinism, Christ died only for those God had chosen to save - the elect.  They alone get the "inward call" of the Spirit, for the "outward call" the preached Gospel message "will not bring sinners to Christ."  I have a problem with this one as well - Paul said that the preached Gospel "was God's power unto salvation" (Romans 1:15-17; 1Corinthians 1:21).  The medium of salvation for Cornelius' household was not some invisible work of the Spirit, but the spoken words of Peter (Acts 10:22,33; 11:14).  I also have to say that a salvation which depends on a divinely sent "inward call" to a select few points to a God who "shows partiality" and that is not the God of the Bible (Romans 2:1-16)!

       Except for the Universalist view that "all will be saved," it is recognized that some kind of limit exists with reference to the atonement of Christ.  Calvinists, thinking they are guarding God's "sovereignty," attribute the limitation of salvation to God as the one who arbitrarily determined who would/would not be saved and thus Christ's atonement alone, even apart from the elect's faith in it, actually saves just the elect.  The alternative view seems to be much more in harmony with the "universal atonement" passages. 

For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. (John 3:16)

 For the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to all men. (Titus 2:11)

 He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world. (1 John 2:2)

 The "conditional" (Arminian) view also seems to be much more in agreement with those passages that discuss the connection between salvation and responsive hearing of the proclaimed objective message of the Gospel. 

That is why I am so eager to preach the gospel also to you who are at Rome.  I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile. (Romans 1:15,16)

 That if you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.  For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved.  As the Scripture says, "Anyone who trusts in him will never be put to shame."  For there is no difference between Jew and Gentile--the same Lord is Lord of all and richly blesses all who call on him,  for, "Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved."  How, then, can they call on the one they have not believed in? And how can they believe in the one of whom they have not heard? And how can they hear without someone preaching to them?  And how can they preach unless they are sent? As it is written, "How beautiful are the feet of those who bring good news!"  But not all the Israelites accepted the good news. For Isaiah says, "Lord, who has believed our message?"  Consequently, faith comes from hearing the message, and the message is heard through the word of Christ. (Romans 10:9-17)

For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. . . . . For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe. (1 Corinthians 1:18,21)

Christ's death sufficiently atoned for all human sin, but the limitation of the application rests with mankind and its faith-acceptance of what Christ has done for them.  Because Calvinism assumes that God sovereignly limited who would be saved, there has been a tendency since the time of Calvin to ignore (as Calvin did in his Institutes) or downplay two key passages because they so clearly contradict his premise,

This is good, and pleases God our Savior, who wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth. (1 Timothy 2:3-4)

The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance. (2 Peter 3:9)

        Irresistible Grace, which holds that, since the "elect" share in total depravity, they are unable to “seek” God or initiate any positive response to Him that God must "activate them" with a special inward call of the Holy Spirit in the heart.  Because they have been selected for salvation apart from their own decision, this "call" is irresistible. 

For the grace which the Spirit extends to the elect cannot be thwarted or refused, it never fails to bring them to true faith in Christ!^[14]

If the outward gospel message won't bring sinners to Christ, then what is its purpose?  Why would the Hebrews writer warn his readers about "evil, unbelieving hearts, falling away, being hardened, holding fast" (Hebrews 3:12-14), Israel's failure to enter Canaan because of unbelief (3:19), and the issue of "hearing with faith" (4:2), if salvation, calling, and election are all God's doing?  Why all this talk about the "irresistible" call of the Spirit when Scripture tells us that the Holy Spirit can be lied to (Acts 5:3), tested (Acts 5:9), resisted (Acts 7:51), grieved (Isaiah 63:10; Ephesians 4:30), quenched (1Thessalonians5:19), insulted (Hebrews10:29), and blasphemed (Matthew12:31)?  I have to say that I find it interesting to note that the less Scriptural/more philosophical and speculative a theological system is, the more necessary it becomes to create its own terminology and phraseology to express itself - where do you find the terms "absolute sovereignty, total depravity, limited atonement, irresistible grace" in the Scripture?  You don't, because they were coined to express Calvinistic, rather than Biblical, concepts!

       Perseverance of the Saints (popularly expressed as "Once saved, Always saved) logically concludes that those sovereignly elected, atoned for, and specially called will not/can not fall from Grace or be lost.

The elect are not only redeemed by Christ and renewed by the Spirit; they are also kept in faith by the almighty power of God. . . Many who profess to believe fall away, but they do not fall from grace for they were never in grace.^[15]

 The "perseverance of the saints" says that all the elect will make it and none will "fall away."  If Calvinism is truly the theology of the Bible, one has to wonder what kind of gibberish Paul was babbling when he warned of "falling from grace" (Galatians 5:1-4)?  Similarly, what was in the mind of Peter (2Peter 2:20-22) or the Hebrews writer (Hebrews 6:4-8) when they uttered such apparent nonsense?  And the simple way of eliminating the embarrassing problem of apostasy is, like the Charismatic response to the unhealed of "they didn't have enough faith," an arrogant dismissal - "they were never really of the elect in the first place."  In my opinion, both answers are cheap ways to dodge the ramifications of bad doctrine.  If apostasy is proof that one was never "in grace" to begin with, how can any Calvinist really have any "assurance" prior to his dying day?

       Tolerance might be more easily achieved if Calvinism had not taken such a confident stand, but Calvinism took an arrogant stance and it's adherents have been taught that this is what the Bible teaches.  Essentially, they believe that "divine sovereignty" is an all-embracing manipulation of everything that occurs, via the "eternal decree."  All of Adam's descendants, following his sin, were rendered able to "choose sin," but not able to choose anything spiritually good.  Thus, not only the provision and offer of salvation is totally God's doing, but also the distinction as to who will/will not accept it and all of the mechanics of the elect's acceptance!  The possibility of "falling from grace" is dealt with by simply declaring that anyone who "appeared to believe and fell away" never really was in the elect to begin with.

       Millard Erickson offers some valuable insights on the problems that arise from the Calvinistic viewpoint.  In commenting on the views of Gordon H. Clark, a staunch Calvinist, Erickson points out that the consistent Calvinist attributes "everything that happens" to God's decretive will, even a drunk shooting his own family to death.  God is the ultimate cause of sin, because the Calvinistic concept of sovereignty rebels at the notion of "fallen" man being able to truly initiate an idea or action that is good.^[16]  These assertions are serious and warrant our investigation.

       I was looking through a fairly recent reference work espousing a title that connected it with the Calvinistic "Westminster Confession" tradition that arrives at similar conclusions.  However, I noticed that one of its articles agreed with my assessment of Calvinism's basic philosophical errors. 

If God has ordained only some to glory, and has chosen whom these are going to be from all eternity, then except in so far as some theologians made allowance for a limbo, this effectively consigned all the others to hell.  Mistaken as Calvin may have well have been on this matter (emphasis mine) . . . Having started with a doctrine of sovereignty which (mistakenly) saw an absolute will as the essential attribute of God, Calvin drew the inevitable consequences.^[17]

        Hopefully, this will provide some background on the philosophical issues when we discuss covenant, God's workings, man/sin, and salvation in the studies that follow.

Calvinism - The Gospel According to Plato & Augustine

        Calvinism is exactly what you get when you try to put Classical Greek religious meaning onto NT words, instead of Septuagint/Hebrew concepts!!!  As a philosophical system of theology, Calvinism is rooted in the basic presupposition of the Absolute Sovereignty of God, who originally determined everything that would happen by a decree.  Since, according to Calvinism, God "determines" everything and man is spiritually incapacitated by "the fall," then God selected who He wanted to save without any input from them, had Christ die just for the one's selected, irresistibly and secretly calls those selected, and will not let any of the elect fall away.  As a logical progression, Calvinism makes great sense - this is why a lot of very intelligent people have embraced it.  The problem is that the logic proceeds from a faulty premise - the Greek/Pagan view of divine sovereignty!

       Let me offer an alternative definition of divine sovereignty, which I think will better accord with everything we find in Scripture.  God holds all power and control over His universe, yet has chosen to have the natural order and His “image-creatures” function with sufficient “semi-autonomy” that both “good and bad” can occur without God directly causing everything to occur as it does.  Semi-autonomy still allows God to intervene in the natural order, as well as individual human lives, as He chooses.  However, natural disasters, accidents, and the “unfairness of life” can occur without being direct judgments on anyone (Ecclesiastes 8:14; Luke 13:1-5; John 9:1-3) and humans can act with sufficient freedom so as to be truly “responsible” for their thoughts and actions.  God’s “absolute sovereignty” is exercised, not in manipulating every event in each human life, but in graciously extending pardon to rebels who will accept it on His terms and bringing final judgment against those who refuse it.  Under this definition, God is not made responsible for evil and passages that emphasize human responsibility for responding to God’s grace make sense. 

The Difficult Passages Reconsidered

        So what of the passages that appear to support the Calvinistic/Divine manipulation viewpoint?  Let’s take another look at them.

Psalm 51:5

 Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, And in sin my mother conceived me.

        Psalm 51:5 has become the charter verse for those espousing the doctrine of "original sin" and "total depravity."  However, I believe there are several good reasons for rejecting Psalm 51:5 as supporting a doctrine of inherited universal guilt from this passage.  First, the traditional understanding of the setting for this psalm/prayer is David’s personal guilt and shame following the prophet Nathan’s confrontation with him and exposure of his adultery with Bathsheba and murder conspiracy to eliminate her husband (2Samuel 11-12).  The setting alone makes me think that this is a very personal prayer of David about his own life, not a platform for proclaiming a universal doctrine.  Second, other Old Testament material points to this being a statement about David’s own particular life and situation.  In the depths of guilt and embarrassment about his own adultery and conspiracy against one of his soldiers, David was also probably reflecting on a problem in his own family background.  The Mosaic Law said that "illegitimate children" were excluded from the assembly to the tenth generation (Deuteronomy 23:2) and David knew that he was the 10th generation from Perez (Ruth 4:18-22), the illegitimate son of Judah's intended "harlotry" with Tamar (Genesis 38).  Thus, David had a long-running taint to his own family lineage from this as well as the very ugly sins right behind him when he wrote this Psalm.  Third, there is the simple grammar of the passage - David was not speaking about humanity in general, but about himself in the first person.  Rather than “we are all . . . “ or “Man is . . . , David wrote “. . . I was brought forth . . . my mother conceived me . . .”  If grammar means anything to exegesis and theology, then we should note that David was making a statement about himself alone and makes no application, as later "theologians" have, to mankind in general.  Fourth, there is the theology problem - the Old Testament does not teach a doctrine of universal inherited guilt.  When theological notions of later generations inheriting the guilt and suffering owed to previous generations (such as “the fathers ate sour grapes, but the children’s teeth are set on edge” - Ezekiel 18:2), God responded plainly through His prophets that this was an erroneous view of things (read all of Ezekiel 18; Jeremiah 31:29,30).  Jesus offered the same corrective response when such notions were expressed to Him (John 9:1-3).  Adam’s sin did impact all of his descendants (Romans 5:12ff), but by initiating and oft-repeated pattern and changing our environment, not by passing on Adam’s personal “guilt” to each of his descendants genetically.  Rather than sharing in adult guilt, Jesus said that children were examples for adults of kingdom citizens (Matthew 18:1-4) and Paul said that children born to believing parents were “holy” (1Corinthians 7:14).  To the Romans, Paul rehearsed his own situation and described the sin/spiritual death event as taking place not at his conception, but later on life when his mind and will, fooled by sin/temptation, became aware of and rebelled against the Mosaic Law (Romans 7:8,9).

John 6:44

 "No one can come to Me unless the Father draws him"

        The Greek term for "draws" (elko) could refer to someone being forcibly pulled (like dragging someone out of the temple – Acts 21:30), but also to the figurative pull that can occur in a man’s inner life, by choice, towards something and that is the meaning here.  As Jesus goes on to say in the next verse, it is the love and seeking of spiritual things, especially a knowledge of God’s Old Testament Messianic preparations, that will lead believers in YHWH to Jesus!  (cf. John 8:37-47; 12:32; Hebrews 11:6; love for the OT YHWH would lead a person to Jesus - Acts 6:7; Galatians3:24).

John 15:16

 “You did not choose Me, but I chose you . . .”

        Context alone will solve this one.  In John 15, we have a record of some of Jesus’ comments to the Apostles during His final hours with them – He told them that they were to bear fruit (John 15:1-8), that they are loved and should obey just as Jesus obeyed (vv. 9-17), and that they will be hated by the world (vv. 18-27).  Jesus is NOT talking with them about their salvation, but about their Apostolic mission and relationship to each other – they did not “apply for & win” Apostolic office, but were selected by Him for this task.  Look at verse 16 – Jesus says they were “chosen and appointed” to bear much fruit (not be saved).  Judas also was “chosen and appointed” to this ministry, but turned aside.

Acts 13:48

       "as many as were appointed to eternal life believed" is not clearly supportive of the deterministic view that election is based totally on God's whimsy.  The Greek term for "appointed" (tetagmenoi, from tasso), is spelled the same in both the passive (action done to the subject) and middle (subject participates in the action of the verb) voice.  Calvinists take it as passive, but context makes it more likely that Gentiles participated in their election in the same sense that unbelieving Jews participated in their condemnation (v. 46).

Acts 16:14

       Lydia was a self-employed business woman, selling fabrics made with Thyatiran dye.  The issue here is the meaning of “the Lord opened her heart” (dienoidzen ten kardian).  Is this Calvinistic manipulation of the elect or something else?  The term is an active indicative aorist – a one-time, past act by the Lord upon her.  However, the question should be asked – “when” did the Lord “open her heart”?  It was to respond to what Paul said, but notice that she was already a worshipper of God prior to this meeting with Paul.  Keep in mind that the one message is met with one of two reactions – an “opened” heart willing to believe or a closed heart unwilling to believe, just as ears/eyes can hear/see or refuse to.

       The Greek phrase used here is similar to what is said in Luke 24:45, of Jesus helping the Apostles to understand the connection between Old Testament predictions and what was occurring with Jesus’ first coming and the commission He was giving them.

Romans 9:11-24

       This passage also contains some “convenient” terminology for proof-texting “Divine election to Salvation.”  However, this portion of Paul’s Roman letter is not primarily discussing salvation, but rather explaining the role of the Israelite nation in God’s plan in view of their general rejection of Jesus (see: Romans 9-11).  The Jewish people, descended from Abraham, were granted many advantages (9:1-5), however their rejection of the Messiah does not invalidate God’s Word or plan (9:6).  To explain those advantages, Paul summarizes some history - God declared that the Messianic lineage would come through Abraham (Genesis 12:1-3), Isaac (Genesis 26:1-4), and Jacob (Genesis 28:10-14) and it was not something determined by any of their “meritorious” actions.  In the same way, God patiently bore with a self-centered Egyptian ruler and was able to even use His rebellion to further His plan.  Romans 9 is talking about two kinds of “election/choice” – national Israel and Pharaoh were “elected” to special roles in the plan to bring forth the Messiah (9:9-22), but “election” to salvation is not guaranteed just because one has a special role (be it Israelite or Apostle)!  Election to salvation, the true “spiritual “Israel,” is found by Jewish and Gentile individuals as they embrace the promise by hearing the message and embracing it by faith (9:6-8,23-32; 10:8-17).  Those “elected to service” who fail to embrace the Message about the Messiah do not inherently acquire election to salvation and that is why Paul was so concerned for His Jewish brethren (9:1-8,30-33; 10:1-4,18-21) – their failure to understand is not necessarily fatal, but unless they turn NOW and believe, so as to be grafted back in, they are doomed (ch. 11).  Again, the comments that seem to support Calvinistic ideas about salvation turn out to be discussing something else.

2 Timothy 2:25

       “that God will grant them repentance” (grant/give - doa) a form of didome, which Arndt & Gingrich say should be viewed here as a subjunctive (50/50 reality hinged on some conditional human? element) rather than an optative (wish).  Rather than hope that God will “zap” rebels with repentance, the subjunctive element emphasizes the “variable” element of humanly choosing to repent, which God desires all would “come to” (2Peter 3:9), and the servant’s hope is that God will grant those in opposition an opportunity to repent - to think about the servant’s example and teaching offered and come to repentance by their own choice.

       “Repentance” (turning from sinful behavior) is something sinners are called to do (Luke 5:32; 13:1-5), it was granted to Israel through Jesus (Acts 5:31) as well as to the Gentiles (Acts 11:18), it is something that people are encouraged to do (Acts 26:20), something which God’s kindness and patience should lead us to do (Romans 2:4-5), it is the result of a sorrow according to God’s will (2Corinthians 7:10), and it is something which in certain situations is not possible after certain decisions are made (Hebrews 12:17).  Peter also understood “repentance” as something that God wants people to do (2Peter 3:9,15).

       When all of these are considered exegetically and against the context of the rest of Scripture, I conclude that the Calvinistic “Divine Manipulation” view is not the best understanding for any of them!

=====================================================================

Charles E. McCoy

September 17, 2005

A Ministry of Severn Christian Church (Severn, Maryland)

Unless otherwise noted, all material produced by Charles E. McCoy

All Scripture citations/quotations from New American Standard Bible

To send a question to Chuck: chuck@severnchristian.org