Calvinism versus Arminianism

Or Predestination versus Free Will

The debate between Calvinists and Arminians is probably the biggest single debate between Christians. It was the main cause of the split between John Wesley and George Whitfield in the 18th Century, and today many on both sides condemn those on the other as heretics - sometimes without even understanding what their opponents actually believe. However, there are many heroes of the faith - men who knew both God and their Bibles better than most of us - on both sides of the debate.

Where did the debate come from?

The debate in its present form almost dates back to the era of John Calvin - the most gifted theologian of the Reformation. His teachings formed the basis of the Reformed, or Calvinistic, school of theology, which was the mainstream of Protestant/Evangelical thought until at least the 18th Century. It is still predominant in Baptist, Presbyterian, and Reformed Churches.

Fifty years after Calvin's death, a theologian called Jacob Arminius, along with several others, objected to five points from Calvin's theology. Calvin's followers responded with a defence of their position. These five points became the classic five points of Calvinism. It is worth noting that Calvin himself would have considered defining his theology by five points simplistic, and there is evidence that he wouldn't have fully signed up to all of them anyway.

Calvinism might have continued to define the mainstream of Evangelical theology if it hadn't been for John Wesley. He was concerned that some Calvinists believed in Predestination in such a way that it prevented the free offer of salvation to everyone, and became more and more vocal and vehement in his attacks on this theology. However, he would actually have agreed with Calvinists on a lot of the points that define Calvinism. The Methodists and most Pentecostal and Charismatic groups are usually Arminian, and this can be traced back to Wesley's theology.

Today, the debate is most active not directly on the issue of predestination versus free will, but on the related question of whether it is possible for a Christian to lose his or her salvation. The internet has allowed people from all sorts of positions to publicly state their view, and the last time I looked, the more moderate voices - on both sides - were more difficult to find.

What are the differences between the two "sides"?

There are a whole host of beliefs. However, it is probably worth concentrating on three positions. Arminians basically emphasise the free will over predestination. Calvinists emphasise God's sovereignty, argue that salvation is predestined, but do not completely rule out free will and human responsibility. Hyper-Calvinists claim that everything is predestined - ruling out free will. Many Arminians mistake Hyper-Calvinism for Calvinism - particularly when arguing against Calvinism.

My personal view is that - despite what most people in the argument say - there is no actual contradiction between God predestining people and them making the choice He has predestined out of free will. I know it sounds like a contradiction, but it may be merely a paradox (something that looks like a contradiction but isn't) like the doctrines of the Trinity and the Incarnation.

Anyway, I'm going to use the five points of Calvinism as a structure to discuss what the debates actually are. I will note some key bible passages used to demonstrate either side of the argument, and when Calvin or Wesley is known to have disagreed with their side's position on the issue - just to show that you don't have to agree with all five points to be a Calvinist or disagree with all of them to be an Arminian.

Total Depravity

This doctrine doesn't mean that we're all in the same league as the likes of Hitler, Bin Laden, or Jack the Ripper. It means that the effect of what's called original sin is so great that humans are incapable of turning to God without God first changing us to be capable of doing so. It would be like a fanatical England football (that's soccer for those of you in the USA) fan supporting Germany (traditionally England's football arch-enemy) when the two teams met in the world cup final.

The doctrine means that without faith, it is impossible to please God (Hebrews 11.6). Its application is, as Jesus said, No-one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him (John 6.44). Wesley was happy to affirm that this doctrine applied to his own life.

The main objection comes from the Christian commission to offer the gospel message to all the world (see, for example, Matthew 28.18-20). The objection says that this doctrine, if true, prevents us from doing so properly - if you are incapable of turning to Christ, then you are not being given a real opportunity to respond to the gospel.

The difference on this issue is best illustrated by an anecdote about a famous evangelist from Church History (I've forgotten who) who said that he prayed like a Calvinist (i.e. as if God's part was all that mattered) and preached like an Arminian (as if our part were all that mattered).

Unconditional Election

This is often referred to by Martin Luther's famous cry of salvation by faith alone. It means that God chose (indeed, predestined) those who will ultimately be saved to become Christians not because of anything they have done or will do (i.e. by works), but without conditions. This is a major bone of contention between the two camps - even though Evangelical Arminians all hold to the fact that salvation is by faith rather than by works.

One of many proof texts of this doctrine is It is by grace you have been saved, through faith - and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God - not by works, so that no-one can boast (Ephesians 2.8-9). It is Jesus' sacrifice on the cross and God's grace that enables us to be saved (i.e. be amongst the elect). Wesley agreed with this one as well.

Those who object to this doctrine are primarily objecting to the bit that says that God chose those who would be saved - objecting that it prevents those preaching the Gospel message from offering salvation to everyone. Calvinists would retort that only God knows who He has chosen. Therefore, in practice, it makes very little difference to preaching the gospel.

Limited Atonement

This doctrine - more often called particular redemption is probably the most academic of the five points. It states that when Jesus died on the cross, His punishment paid for the sins of the elect - those God predestined to be saved - rather than for the sins of everyone (the entire world). It is supported by passages such as If while we were enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of His Son, much more, now that we are reconciled, shall we be saved by His life. (Romans 5.10) and other passages that talk about Christ dying for the Church.

The counter-argument is summed up by passages like There is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all men (1 Timothy 2.5-6). These passages say that Christ died for the whole world, not just a part of it. Both sides have ways of rationalising the other side's quoted Bible passages into their system.

The logical argument from the Calvinists is that if Christ paid the penalty for all sins, then why would God make those who are not saved pay the penalty again in Hell? Arminians would argue that you cannot logically offer people salvation if their sins have not actually been paid for.

This particular point is really a technical issue with little practical relevance. Incidentally, Calvin is recorded as preaching that Christ did die for all, but that the distinction between the elect and everyone else is that Christ pleads for the elect before God the Father. When it really comes down to it, this point is the one best left to people who get paid for writing about academic theology.

Irresistable Grace

This one means that every member of the elect (those God chooses to be saved) will eventually - as a result of what God does in them - respond to the gospel and be saved. Arminians argue against this on the grounds that if this is true, then conversion cannot be a voluntary or willing choice. They base this on the free offer of the gospel - saying that if the offer is a real and free offer, then a person being offered it must be able to choose either way.

The idea of Irresistable grace is well summed up in the following Bible passage: I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes and be careful to observe my ordinances (Ezekiel 36.27). In my opinion, the objections to this doctrine are not taken from scripture, but from a particular philosophy of free will.

Perseverance of the Saints

This is the point of Calvinism that most directly connects to the popular debate as to whether a Christian can lose his or her salvation. It means that all those Christian who have genuinely been saved will remain living as Christians (persevering) until they die or Jesus returns, and that only those people are truly saved. This view is based on passages like My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me; and I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish, and no one shall snatch them out of my hand. (John 10.27-28).

Arminians would argue that it is possible for a Christian to lose their salvation. They quote passages such as If anyone does not remain in me, he is like a branch that is thrown away and withers; such branches are picked up, thrown into the fire, and burned. (John 15.6). However, I have yet to hear an Arminian properly explain in what sense the person who lost their salvation was originally saved.

There is, however, a third Calvinist position that - unlike the two others - does not connect ultimate salvation with persevering. It connects all the warnings and encouragements in the Bible about persevering with our reward in heaven - which is extra stuff on top of salvation. This position is best summed up in the following passage. For no one can lay a foundation other than the one already laid, which is Jesus Christ. If any man builds on this foundation using gold, silver, costly stones, wood, hay, or straw, his work will be shown for what it is, because the Day will bring it to light. It will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test the quality of each man's work. If what he has built survives, he will receive his reward. If it is burned up, he will suffer loss; he himself will be saved, but only as one escaping through the flames. (1 Corinthians 3.11-15).

Conclusions

My personal belief on the matter is that Calvinism is clearly the better theology, though it has weaknesses and some of the classical five points are likely to be at least slightly wrong. However, it doesn't fit absolutely all of the Biblical evidence. I reckon that the problems over this area are mostly to do with human inability to understand how predestination and free-will (whatever that actually means) can co-exist. I may, of course, be completely wrong. But I hope my incredibly shallow surface-skim of this issue helps somebody.