Since the 16th Century, Christians have debated the theologies concerning salvation that have been presented by John Calvin and Jacobus Arminius. I will attempt to present the highlights of what these two men taught on salvation and then give my own views on it.
These two men represent a bit of a rift in the world of Christian theology. But I think the rift isn’t their fault but the fault of their respective followers. And although Arminius started the debate, I don’t see his points as being that different from Calvin’s. Let’s take a quick look at what the hubbub is all about.
First, a word on “Grace”
Grace is what we get when we get what we don’t deserve. By its very definition, grace removes any act of human effort that would make our salvation something that is owed to us, like a paycheck.
God saved you by his grace when you believed. And you can’t take credit for this; it is a gift from God. Salvation is not a reward for the good things we have done, so none of us can boast about it.
(Ephesians 2:8-9, NLT)
This is the difference between God owing us and God showing us unearned favor. It changes everything that the Roman Catholics were forcing upon the masses. No longer do we have to pay money to the Church to earn God’s favor. No longer do we have to listen to a sermon in a language we don’t (or barely) understand. No more do I have to have a priest (really a whole assembly of priests, bishops, cardinals, and a pope) acting as a go-between and standing in the way between God and me. Instead of servitude to the mighty Church, I can now enjoy freedom that comes through Grace. For anyone not under the thumb of tyranny, this concept is difficult to drive home. As these men’s messages echoed that of Christ—freedom from harsh rules of the governing elite, and a simple, loving relationship with God—it began to take the world by storm.
Both of these men were reformers. They fought on the same side against the Roman Catholic domination of the day.
John Calvin
Five Points of Calvinism
As in any movement, the current face of Calvinism has been influenced and altered somewhat by the many people who followed Calvin but put their own spin on his points. Therefore, Calvinism may or may not reflect the actual, specific views of its namesake himself. Currently, we have a form of Calvinism that is usually boiled down into 5 Points. They are presented in the acronym TULIP. Here they are:
(T) Total depravity
(U) Unconditional election
(L) Limited atonement
(I) Irresistible grace, and
(P) Perseverance of the saints
Total Depravity
Don’t let the word “total” send you reeling. We humans are not completely evil. But we certainly aren’t completely “good” either. While we can do some good, we are not good creatures. You cannot say that humans are benevolent beings. We have the capacity for both evil and good in our lives.
The concept here is that we have a nature inside of us that is at enmity with God. At our very essence, we have become corrupted from the original “good” condition in which God made Adam and Eve. This is the same thing that I put forth in my post on The DNA of Imperfection. It’s also called “Original Sin”.
Unconditional Election
To break this down, I’ll say that it has to do with God electing (selecting for salvation) each person without any condition of that person having any affect on God’s decision. In other words, God does not choose people for salvation based on the condition of that person (character, status, etc.). This is because in God’s eyes everyone is corrupt and unworthy of His salvation. Therefore, salvation is only based on God’s condition—His grace, His mercy, His kindness, etc.—and has nothing to do with the kind of person receiving this grace.
Limited Atonement
According to Calvinism, Christ only legally bore the sins of the elect (those saved) even though His blood was sufficient to cover all. This is to say that although Christ’s blood is sufficient for covering all people ever conceived, it is only effective for those who believe.
Irresistible Grace
Kind of sounds like something that cannot be avoided, doesn’t it? But what if it really meant, “irresistible offer of grace”? What if Calvin were saying that it is the offer of God that is irresistible, not necessarily the grace? Meaning, you can’t stop God from offering His grace to you. You can resist the grace; just not the offer.
As we read it, it does sound like a mechanical and coercive force acting upon a person, whether they want it or not. This may not be the case in mainstream Calvinism, though. Many in the movement would say that it is the act of God making the person willing to receive him. So, even if a person were unable to love a god he couldn’t see, this God is able to give him the ability to believe and love beyond what the man could muster. To the mainstream Calvinist, it does not mean that a person cannot resist God’s will. It means that when God moves to save and/or regenerate a person, the person cannot halt God’s actions and will eventually be regenerated (made alive by the Holy Spirit). (See Proverbs 21:1 and Romans 9:18.)
Personally, for whatever it is worth, I do not think that it means people cannot resist God’s unstoppable offer of redemption. I think that He never forces Himself upon anyone who does not want Him.
Jacobus “James” Arminius
Much like Calvin, Arminius lived to fight against the tyranny of the Roman Catholic Church. In many ways, they were brothers in arms against a world that is hostile to them both for the exact same reasons. I think that their views are not that different, as I read the originators’ own words. But they have been interpreted to be at odds with each other.
A Dutchman, living in his native Netherlands, James Arminius was also a theologian and minister. It is said that he developed a manner of theology that was an answer to what the Calvinists were pushing at the time. He reportedly did not agree with their staunch stands on Predestination. So his answer was his Man’s Free Will doctrine.
Free Will
Here is what I understand Arminius’ stance to be on man’s free will:
Man is totally affected by sin in all that he is, but with the prompting of the Holy Spirit, the unbeliever is capable of freely choosing God.
Jacobus Arminius
I have read commentaries on this to mean, a man does not necessarily require God’s call upon them. As people, we are capable of calling upon Him, with or without His call. But notice how the quote above includes, “with the prompting of the Holy Spirit”. Well, if we include that part, then we are saying much the same thing as John Calvin. But, this was purportedly a response from Arminius to the Calvinists (meaning that he disagreed with Calvin). But did he disagree with Calvin or was it the Calvinists with whom he disagreed?
Personally, I would push back on attributing the “call” to the Holy Spirit. I would attribute that to the Father, based on John 6:44,
“For no one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws them to me, and at the last day I will raise them up.”
John 6:44
And I would attribute the regeneration of a person’s soul and spirit to the Holy Spirit, according to verse 63,
“The Spirit alone gives eternal life. Human effort accomplishes nothing. And the very words I have spoken to you are spirit and life.”
John 6:63
Election
According to many on Arminianism’s stance, they say that God elects to save a person based on His omniscient ability to already know the person’s response to Him. While we aren’t exactly splitting hairs here, it sure feels like it. The difference lies in God’s motive, I guess. On the Calvin hand, God decides whom to save based on what He wants and it doesn’t matter who agrees or not (including the one being saved?). On the Arminius hand, God only saves those who want to be saved. The man’s will is free to accept or reject.
Well, as we have already seen, Calvinism allows for man to deny God. I don’t see a big difference here. Not only that, I think it would be a bigger sin to have God operate in a box and we decide how He acts and why He acts all the time. Isn’t He capable of using His omniscience however He wishes and still operate in a fair manner?
Universal Atonement
This means that Jesus actually bore on His person the sins of every person ever conceived over the entirety of human existence. The Calvinists said He only bore the sins of those who would accept it (the cross). If the other statement was stepping a little into the weeds, then this one really gets into the nitty-gritty. I can see how someone might think that this matters, but I don’t get the argument. I think that they are both guilty of trying to be smarter than a person should be. I cannot for the life of me see how it matters. So, I’m going to toss this one into the “Who Cares” bin. You know, only those who are saved are saved. And that has no effect on the unsaved.
And I get the feeling that both of these arguments are assuming a kind of individuality of our sins. As if sin were a truckload of rocks and the Savior only took on those rocks that were designated for Him to take. But when a leader sends a delegate from himself and his people, that representative is a single man who speaks for all. Jesus was a representative of the human race, since He too bore that human nature (100% human, 100% God). I think He bore the sins as an official representative (surrogate, even) of all humans, regardless of any other prerequisite. Are you human? Then the power is yours to accept. Not human? Not for you. (Sorry, Lucifer). I have not seen any evidence of God forcing Himself upon anyone. I think that if a person is willing, then God is willing. But will God willingly take in someone who is not himself willing to be taken in? I think that God is modeling one of His attributes that He has imbued us with; being gentle (not forcing anyone to do anything they don’t want to do). I also think that His integrity (another attribute) is something that He will protect, even if it means the loss of some of His creatures.
Resistible Grace
The sinner can successfully resist the grace of God and not be regenerated when God convicts that person.
I’m with Arminius on this one. But I think that Calvin was too. We’ve already discussed this, so I’ll move on.
Falling From Grace
It is possible to fall away from the faith and lose one’s salvation.
Well, this is worded poorly. I think I would have made the doctrine say, “God neither forces you to come to Him, nor stay with Him”. Either way, it sounds like Arminius and I agree here (maybe). It depends on how one interprets these things. If a person is ejected from the faith for not living up to a code, I wholeheartedly disagree. If it means that a person has the God-given ability (or right) to refuse Him and His salvation, then I would wholeheartedly agree. If he is saying that a person cannot squirm away from God’s loving embrace, I disagree; if it is that a person cannot be taken from God, I wholeheartedly agree.
And this is the will of God, that I should not lose even one of all those he has given me, but that I should raise them up at the last day.
John 6:39, NLT
We also know that it is God’s will that no one would perish, and yet more will reject Him than will receive Him (see Matthew 18:14).
For my own position on this, see the post, “Can Believers Lose Their Salvation?” But I’ll just say that I don’t believe that anyone or thing can pull you away from God. He will never let go. But He will let you leave Him, if you really want to.
Conclusion
As a believer who sees human institutions, like religion, as a method of controlling the masses of humanity, I appreciate the efforts of both John Calvin and James Arminius, as well as all of the other reformers who broke the grip of Roman Catholicism that was strangling the life out of the Holy Scriptures and Christianity. Some of them gave their all in the fight. Others lost everything. And still others relocated around the globe.
As someone who has pondered the ins and outs of salvation for nearly 60 years, I can say that I agree with both John C. and James A. and do not cling to either. Neither do I wholeheartedly agree with either on every point (especially when they start getting into matters that I don’t think are even relevant, like predestination). Let’s call John Calvin “Paul”, and call James Arminius “Apollos”, if you know what I mean. (Don’t know what I mean? Go to 1 Corinthians 3.)
Be at peace, and get into the Word.
Gary
