Addressing the Top Five Misconceptions of Calvinism

Even though I embrace reformed theology (aka “Calvinism”) now, I understand the thinking behind articles such as Dan Delzell’s recent “Infant Baptism and 5-Point Calvinism are Limited”. I grew up under an Arminian pastor who I still deeply respect and admire that would nod in agreement with all the points Delzell makes in his post.

When I first went to seminary, I studied systematic theology under a very well know theologian who espouses what he calls “moderate Calvinism”, which is really an inconsistent form of Arminian theology. At the time, that framework seemed logical to me.

But when I started my Ph.D. studies, I chose as the focus of my dissertation the apologetics of the Apostle Paul. This topic forced me to do something I had never done in my Christian life up to that point: seriously study the doctrines of grace. I’m ashamed to admit I had never actually examined any of the Biblical arguments of reformed thinkers, but had only read what those opposed to Calvinism said that reformed theology taught.

The outcome of that Biblical investigation was that I became convinced of reformed theology’s validity.

Because I know both sides of the fence so well, I thought I’d try and sort out what I believe to be the top incorrect stereotypes and misconceptions about Calvinism that I constantly run into and see if some of the confusion that surrounds this sometimes volatile subject can’t be cleared up. I’ll use Calvinism’s TULIP acronym to work through each false impression.

T – Total Depravity

Misconception: People don’t have “free will” and are basically robots without any ability to choose on their own.

Fact: Calvinism acknowledges that all human beings make various choices in life. However, when it comes to making a decision for God, reformed theology affirms that no one seeks God or receives Christ on their own without being spiritually awakened by God and enabled to do so.

It is no understatement to say that once a person fully understands the doctrine of total depravity, all other points in Calvinism are easy to accept. Get this teaching wrong, and you have a theological mess on your hands.

Do people make choices? Of course, each and every day, and on many different levels. But when it comes to salvation in Christ, the Bible is clear that each person is born in sin (Ps. 51:5), spiritually dead (Eph. 2:1), and morally incapable of coming to Christ by themselves (1 Cor. 2:14, Rom. 8:6-7).

Jesus made the explicit statement, “No one can come to Me unless it has been granted him from the Father” (John 6:65), which clearly showcases an inability in everyone to freely choose Christ unless granted by the Father (see also John 6:44). Once an unbeliever is spiritually called by God out of their darkness (2 Tim. 1:8-9) and their eyes are opened (John 9:39), they then willingly receive Jesus as Savior.

James White sums up the correct position well when he says: “Reformed Christians believe that men believe and choose. It is the order of events that is in dispute. Every Christian has chosen Christ, believed in Christ, embraced Christ, and even more, continues to do so. The question is not ‘must a person believe,’ but can a person believe while a slave to sin? Further, whose decision comes first: the decision of God to free the enslaved, dead sinner and give him the ability to believe, or the free-choice decision of the sinner that then makes him or her one of the elect?”

U – Unconditional Election

Misconception: The doctrine that says God chooses who will be saved is incredibly unfair.

Fact: Reformed theology upholds that no one deserves salvation and that God displays incredible mercy in saving those He chooses.

Arthur Pink began one message in Australia many years ago by saying, “I am going to speak tonight on one of the most hated doctrines of the Bible, namely, that of God’s sovereign election.”

By far, the most uttered complaint against election is that it’s not fair. And yet, every Christian acknowledges they don’t deserve God’s mercy and His salvation – that it’s “fair” if God chose to judge all sinners as being unworthy of spending eternal life with Him.

That being the case why is it considered repugnant if God chooses to show mercy to some and allows His justice to fall on others who willingly continue in their sin? Would a governor be considered an ogre and unfair simply because he/she decided to grant amnesty to one criminal while others are left to carry out their proper sentence?

Those who reject election believe in choice, but they don’t want God to choose; they want humanity to choose instead. This seems more fair and just to them.

However, Paul anticipated this response from the audience that received his letter to the Romans. In chapter 9, after carefully laying out the doctrine of election, Paul specifically and proactively answers the charge of unfairness with God and clearly spells out that salvation has nothing to do with our choice but is rather His alone:

“What shall we say then? Is there injustice on God’s part? By no means! For he says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.” So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy” (Rom. 9:14–16).

Such a statement from Paul makes absolutely no sense if the Apostle believed that we are the ultimate decision maker where salvation is concerned vs. God. From a human standpoint, what would be unfair about that?

L – Limited Atonement

Misconception: Only Calvinism limits the atonement of Christ on the cross.

Fact: Outside of Universalists, every Christian believes in limited atonement.

Unless you’re a Universalist and believe that everyone will eventually be saved, then you believe that the atonement of Christ is limited and that it automatically doesn’t save all of humanity.

But how does a person come to believe? This is where we must boomerang back up to the “T” and “U” of Calvinism’s TULIP and first understand how God saves those He chooses.

But as to who truly limits Christ’s sacrifice on the cross, reformed pastor Charles Spurgeon offers these helpful words in this semi-lengthy, but helpful quote:

“We are often told that we limit the atonement of Christ. Because we say that Christ has not made a satisfaction for all men or all men would be saved. Now our reply to this is on the other hand our opponents limit it, we do not. The Arminians say Christ died for all men. Ask them what they mean by that. Did Christ die to secure the salvation of all men? They say no, certainly not. We ask them the next question: Did Christ die to secure the salvation of any one person in particular? They say no. They’re obliged to say that if they’re consistent. They say, no, Christ has died that any man may be saved if ... and then follow certain conditions of salvation…“Now, who is it that limits of the death of Christ? Why, you - you say that Christ did not die so as to infallibly secure the salvation of anybody. We beg your pardon. When you say we limit Christ’s death we say no my dear sir it is you that do that. We say that Christ so died that He infallibly secured the salvation of a multitude that no man can number who through Christ’s death not only may be saved but will be saved and cannot by any possibility run the hazard of being anything but saved. You are welcome to your atonement; you may keep it. We will never renounce ours for the sake of it.”

I – Irresistible Grace

Misconception: God drags people kicking and screaming against their will into His kingdom.

Fact: Reform theology teaches that God lovingly overcomes the natural rebellion in the sinner’s heart so that they may accept His gift of salvation.

J. I. Packer sums up this doctrine in a very succinct manner when he says, “Grace proves irresistible just because it destroys the disposition to resist.”

A passage in Acts showcases this efficacious call of God in action: “And on the Sabbath day we went outside the gate to a riverside, where we were supposing that there would be a place of prayer; and we sat down and began speaking to the women who had assembled. A woman named Lydia, from the city of Thyatira, a seller of purple fabrics, a worshiper of God, was listening; and the Lord opened her heart to respond to the things spoken by Paul. ” (Acts 16:13–14).

Another point worth making is that this call is not given to everyone. This fact is evident in Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians: “But we preach Christ crucified, to Jews a stumbling block and to Gentiles foolishness, but to those who are the called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God” (1 Cor. 1:23-24).

Notice the same two groups are preached to (Jews and Gentiles) and yet only those called by God (also Jews and Gentiles) are saved by His grace. These are the ones who receive God’s efficacious call (i.e. His irresistible grace).

P – Perseverance of the Saints

Fact: Calvinism teaches that a professing Christian with no change in behavior and no movement toward sanctification proves that they were never saved to begin with.

Reformed scholar and pastor John Piper tells the story of a woman who heard a message he delivered on the perseverance of the saints (which says a born again Christian can never lose their salvation, but will persevere to the end). She came to him and stated that she was in an adulterous affair, but because she was saved, she intended to continue in her affair without any worry about losing her salvation.

Piper’s reply to her was direct and rare in our current sugar-coated, seeker-friendly church environment: “God will damn you to Hell if you continue in your sin.”

In making that statement, Piper was simply affirming the Bible’s teaching that the fruit of the tree identifies the type of tree (Matt. 12:33). In no way does Calvinism teach that a person born again may continue in their rebellion, sin against God, and see eternal life with the Creator.

Instead, reformed theology upholds just the opposite: that a true Christian will manifest holy affections that prove their salvation, although they will always struggle with the sin nature that they have (see Romans 7). For an excellent treatment of this subject, see Jonathan Edward’s magisterial work, “A Treatise Concerning Religious Affections”.

Conclusion

While I have no fanciful dreams that the above will instantly turn those who oppose Calvinism into reformed theologians, I do hope that perhaps some of the faulty critiques aimed at the doctrines of grace will be blunted, and that believers will take their Bible in one hand and some accurate teaching of reformed theology in the other, and at least understand the positions in a more accurate way.

For a thorough treatment of this theology, see Chosen But Free by Dr. Norman Geisler: http://goo.gl/xBrIn.

See http://www.reformed.org/index.html for a brief explanation of the Calvin TULIP acronym.

James White, The Potter’s Freedom (Amityville, NY: Calvary Press, 2000), Pg. 184.

Arthur Pink, The Doctrine of Election (Granbury, TX: PBM Desktop Publications, 2005), Pg. 4.

For an explanation of why I think this is the easiest teaching of Calvinism to believe, see my post here: http://goo.gl/ic66o.

http://www.spurgeon.org/sermons/0181.htm.

J. I. Packer, introduction to John Owen’s The Death of Death in the Death of Christ (Carlisle, PA: The Banner of Truth Trust, 2007), Pg. 8.

http://www.desiringgod.org/resource-library/seminars/tulip-part-8

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/edwards/affections.pdf.

For some good starter books, see “The Five Points of Calvinism” and “What is Reformed Theology?

While in college, after once arguing until 3:00 with a Calvinist, both of us honestly using scripture to support our point of view, I came to the conclusion that I would never embark on that discussion again. Something was wrong.

When tested from God’s point of view, it’s 100% election. Tested from man’s point of view, it’s 100% free choice.

So, I assume election is true and free choice is true, and the contradiction bothers me no more than an apparently self-contradictory theory which attempts to model reality.

And, BTW, God isn’t telling me whom is predestined. To try to guess is hubris.

Well, I said it was a bad example! :D

So yeah - your objection noted, we stand on the Irresistible Grace principle.

Probably the toughest thing for us to explain is that 'free will' bit. I don't have a good answer for that except to say that I feel like I could have rejected Christ, but also had felt drawn, and am pleased (of course) to have accepted.

Clearly, we believe there are times and places in which people are steered directly by God (the scripture writers, for instance, were 'God Inspired'). Pharoah's heart was hardened in Exod. 7:13. But I see no scripture declaring that God orchestrates and directs the minds and actions of all men. To the contrary, if man is being controlled, then how could we all possibly be "without excuse" before Him (Rom. 1:20)? We would be able to say we were controlled! So either that verse is false, or we do indeed have free will.

Hmmmm - guess He gave me those words to write... or did He?

Tested from man’s point of view, it’s 100% free choice.

That is only your personal point of view, not all men.

Many people know they are unable to choose salvation; they believe it's 100% election (or God's sovereignty) by which they became part of the family of God.

John 6:63 “It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life.”

John 6:64 “But there are some of you who do not believe.” For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were who did not believe, and who it was that would betray Him.

John 6:65 And He was saying, “For this reason I have said to you, that no one can come to Me unless it has been granted him from the Father.”

John 15:16 “You did not choose Me but I chose you, and appointed you that you would go and bear fruit, and that your fruit would remain, so that whatever you ask of the Father in My name He may give to you.”

My biggest problems with Calvinism are:

1. Most of its subscribers I have encountered on a discussion basis have been pompous, arrogant, jerks who think they have God figured out. I have no doubt that there are fine Calvinists out there who do not take such an approach -— and most certainly those on FR would be some of the finest.

2. Calvinism is a man-developed system of beliefs that Calvinists use as a filter or mold into which scripture is to fit.

3. I have a very hard time believing that a significant portion of the earth’s population from the beginning of time to the end of time will have been born, lived their lives, and died into eternal damnation NEVER HAVING ANY CHANCE WHATSOEVER because they were not part of the pre-determined, elected, privileged class.

I’d much rather see Christians take a “let Sciprture speak for Scripture by the power of the Holy Spirit” approach to the Living Word, rather than parsing, dicing, slicing, twisting, and weaving God’s Word into a set of beliefs that are, in reality, a component of the mysteries that our Heavenly Father has not revealed to us.

I have many of the same concerns with hard core Arminians.

Here’s the reality: when it all ends and you, I, or any other person who has been washed by the sacrificial blood of the Lamb and are standing in God’s presence in Paradise, the absolute LAST thing on our mind will be whether Calvinism or Arminianism or any other man-made theological theory was right or wrong.

After study quantum mechanics, I came to the conclusion that what was wrong was a form of “indeterminacy,” an inability to process the true state of things, because we see in three dimensions. An electron is a particle if tested for particularity and a wave if tested for waveness.
When tested from God’s point of view, it’s 100% election. Tested from man’s point of view, it’s 100% free choice.

So, I assume election is true and free choice is true, and the contradiction bothers me no more than an apparently self-contradictory theory which attempts to model reality.

I think you're on to something!

And, BTW, God isn’t telling me whom is predestined. To try to guess is hubris.

Much agreed.

1. Most of its subscribers I have encountered on a discussion basis have been pompous, arrogant, jerks who think they have God figured out.

The same could be said of Arminians, Catholics, Mormons, atheists, etc. Many who respond to these threads think they have "God figured out".

2. Calvinism is a man-developed system of beliefs that Calvinists use as a filter or mold into which scripture is to fit.

And so are the Five Articles of Remonstrance that Calvinism attempts to refute. In fact, any discussion short of reading the Bible and not saying anything else is man-developed. Does it mean that it is right? Only as far as it faithfully represents the Word of God.

As a Calvinist, I have trouble with that as well, but Romans 9 clearly points out that some vessels were made for honor and some for dishonor. I can not argue with the Potter.

Amen. Grace and peace.

Sorry, my other response was a bit flippant. I believe with all my heart that God chose me and knew me. The Bible tells me so.

I can only look in reverse, however. From my side of the veil, I know it is true because of the choice I made.

It is ultimately irrelevant to talk about God’s election, other than as a theoretical curiosity, since we have absolutely no way to know other than by running a test from our side of the veil.

" 2. Calvinism is a man-developed system of beliefs that Calvinists use as a filter or mold into which scripture is to fit."

Man-developed? Guilty.

Mold into which scripture is to fit? Not guilty... in fact, it's an attempt to explain a bunch of scriptures that the opposing views tend to ignore (post #46 included, btw). With that, I mean the passages - a lot of them in context, not just a single word or phrase - that identify words such as 'elect' and 'predestination'.

Point #3? Already covered above.

You are free to allow this to pass - nothing said in this thread should be any threat to salvation... I believe there's agreement on that. I subscribe to this Reformed tradition for one reason: I believe it gives God the most credit for the work he's done - and continues to do - with His creation. It means He's firmly in control - which is exactly the way it should be. But I do believe it allows scripture to hang together better than other philosophies I've investigated (I was originally an arminian baptist)...and that enriches my owbn study and worship.

But you're right: when we stand before the Judgment Seat, we aren't gonna be asked if we're Baptist, Methodist, Calvinist, Lutheran, Catholic, or whatever. Fortunately, Christ will claim that I'm covered by Him so that I won't have to say a word.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.