Calvinism or Arminianism? Or a mix of flavors?
As we continue to think through the influence of Calvinism on our generation I think it would be helpful to define Calvinism at this point.
The issue of Calvinism, I think, will always be here as long as King Jesus should remain exalted at the right hand of the Father. As mentioned earlier, when one discusses the being and action of God there is no route to venture down that will not pass you by Calvinism. We will always discuss God’s being and actions, therefore we will continue to venture into Calvinism. As hard as one tries it can’t happen.
It should be noted that the “5 points of Calvinism,” justly called, were developed as responses to a five-point manifesto that was put out by certain “semi-Palagians” in the early seventeenth century. This theology, known as Arminianism, potently stemmed from 2 main philosophical points: 1) divine sovereignty is not compatible with human freedom, nor therefore with human responsibility; and, 2) ability limits obligation.
Here are the 5 points of Arminianism:
1) Man is never so completely corrupted by sin that he cannot savingly believe the gospel when it is put before him.
2) Man is never so completely controlled by God that he cannot reject it.
3) God’s election of those who shall be saved is prompted by his foreseeing that they will of their own accord believe.
4) Christ’s death did not ensure the salvation of anyone, for it did not secure the gift of faith to anyone (there is no gift of faith); what it did was rather to create a possibility of salvation for everyone if they believe.
5) It rests with believers to keep themselves in a state of grace by keeping up their faith; those who fail here fall away and are lost.
I think the key point here is: Arminianism has made salvation dependent entirely on man himself.
The Synod of Dort therefore convened in 1618 to pronounce its rejoinder of these positions on God’s being, actions, and man’s freewill. These “5 points of Calvinism” are in strike contrast to what we read above. They stem from a very different principle and main point – salvation is of the LORD and not of man (Jonah 2:9). These 5 points are conveniently and popularly known as TULIP: Total depravity, Unconditional election, Limited atonement, Irresistible grace, Perseverance of the saints. They are defined as:
1) Fallen man in his natural state lacks all power to believe the gospel, just as he lacks all power to believe the law, despite all external inducements that may be extended to him.
2) God’s election is a free, sovereign, unconditional choice of sinners, as sinners, to be redeemed by Christ, given faith, and brought to glory.
3) The redeeming work of Christ had as its end and goal the salvation of the elect.
4) The work of the Holy Spirit in bringing men to faith never fails to achieve its object.
5) Believers are kept in faith and grace by the unconquerable power of God till they come to glory.
As we have seen, Calvinism claims a high view of God’s sovereignty in the salvation of man. Arminianism, the quite opposite.
Why are these 2 positions at such odds, and why does our generation place so much tension and debate on this?
What do you think?
———————————————————————————————–
Note: most of the information above came from Mark Dever and JI Packer’s book “In My Place Condemned He Stood: Celebrating the Glory of the Atonement.”
March 10, 2010
Calvinism