Let me say at the outset that I won’t be interacting with the various Calvinist viewpoints or offering a nuanced critique of hyper-Calvinism v. “high” Calvinism v. “strict” Calvinism. I saw a comic strip on Twitter/X where a Calvinist poked fun at his fellow Calvinists about some of the high-handed intermural debate that goes on between Calvinists themselves. The comic said, “Brothers and sisters are natural enemies, like Arminians and Calvinists, or Lutherans and Calvinists, or Catholics and Calvinists, or Calvinists and other Calvinists.

This isn’t a strange thing. Our church is committed to exclusively using the King James Bible – a position most would describe as “King James Only.” But amongst King James Onlyists, that isn’t nearly enough. I don’t say that the King James Version is inspired, so I’m not really King James Only – I only “use” the King James. And this statement is made with thick scorn heaped upon my head.

Our nuanced opinion is a design feature, fed in part by our unique individuality and in part by our fallenness. And though the work of redemption ought to teach us to hold our viewpoints in humility, we all have those lines that “you shall not pass.” And woe unto that man that crosses our carefully-drawn line.

That said, a hyper-Calvinist will argue that man’s salvation and sanctification and really everything in life is all dictated by God, that man has no choice in anything, that even the suggestion that we should respond to the Gospel is a corruption of the Gospel. “High” Calvinism believes in evangelism because God commands it, but considers it more of a scavenger hunt in search of the elect. According to high Calvinism, God has no desire to save the non-elect. He calls all men to faith and repentance, but for the non-elect, this call only demonstrates that their condemnation is just. God doesn’t love all men, and the atonement of Christ is not available to all men. In other words, the universal offer of the Gospel is more a theory than a reality.

We appreciate a Calvinist like Charles Spurgeon, not because he is a dead Calvinist, but because he dealt honestly with passages that Calvinists sometimes ignore. He passionately proclaimed the Gospel to the lost and preached as if it were possible for all men to repent and believe the Gospel. Some have speculated that Spurgeon had severe misgivings about the Calvinism he espoused, and maybe that is so. But in my mind, it is more likely that Spurgeon was himself a “strict” or “low” Calvinist. Low Calvinism teaches that God desires all to be saved and elects some to salvation. 

You can see charts and descriptions and various ways these viewpoints have been described and distinguished here and here – honestly, I can’t untangle the web, but I can at least recognize the different strings in the tangle.

As an outsider looking in, I am tempted to join with many of my IFB brethren to say I reject the whole mess. Indeed, I’ve heard many claim that “if you accept one point of Calvinism, you’ve accepted all the points of Calvinism.” And from the other side, I’ve heard plenty of Calvinists say that a four-point Calvinist is a no-point Calvinist. If you don’t accept all the points of Calvinism, you reject them all. Debate can be a delicate dance.

As I mentioned, I don’t intend to weigh in on all the distinctions between these different tribes. Previously, I have written about my own interest in Calvinism. I made the statement that, ultimately, I could not come to terms with several elements of Calvinism. I was asked to describe my differences with it, and I intend to do that in this next series of posts, for which this one will serve as an introduction. And since the lines between these various brands of Calvinism can be challenging for the noninitiates to distinguish (and yes, I consider myself a noninitiate), I won’t try super-hard to maintain these distinctions. Rather, I will say that many of the arguments I hear against Calvinism would be more appropriate for hyper-Calvinism, and many of my objections are probably against high Calvinism. But from my vantage point, there is a “popular” Calvinism that gets bandied about on the Internet, and I have a few objections to this kind of pop Calvinism. I have a duty to believe what the Bible says, and that duty transcends the claims of Calvinism, Arminianism, or any other systematic theology. Where Calvinism faithfully represents Scripture, I am a Calvinist. Where Arminianism faithfully represents Scripture, I am Arminian. I have no desire to uphold a particular name-brand theology over my commitment to a faithful understanding of the Word of God.

In the following descriptions, I fully expect that some will differ strongly from my position, and I accept that. I was asked to explain where I disagree with Calvinism, and that is what I intend to do. I am quite sure that I understand some things better than others and that some readers understand things better than me. But since this is my blog, these are my thoughts on it. Here’s the first of six objections – let the reader understand.

Sweeping Past the Paradox

Does the Bible teach election? Some form of the word “elect” or “election” appears 23 times in the New Testament, not to mention passages that speak of God’s choice and God’s eternal purpose. Here is a sampling of verses that speak of election:

(For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth;) (Romans 9:11)

Wherefore the rather, brethren, give diligence to make your calling and election sure: for if ye do these things, ye shall never fall: (2 Peter 1:10)

Therefore I endure all things for the elect’s sakes, that they may also obtain the salvation which is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory. (2 Timothy 2:10)

Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied. (I Peter 1:2)

Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began, (2 Timothy 1:9)

And when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad, and glorified the word of the Lord: and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed. (Acts 13:48)

According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love: (Ephesians 1:4)

Now, I have heard various theories about who exactly the elect are – ranging from Jesus (based on I Peter 2:6) to the church (2 John 1:1, 13; I Peter 5:13) to the saint. And I have heard several theories about what God elects us to – whether salvation or sanctification or position. I believe God elects men to salvation; I think the Bible makes that abundantly clear. I will happily explain how I come to that – some other time. Ask, and it shall be given thee.

I do not believe that I am required, based on the Bible’s teaching on election, to reject the notion that when a sinner repents and believes the Gospel, he did so under some strange compulsion that forced him, against his will, to do so.

But my first objection to pop Calvinism is the way Calvinists tend to sweep past the paradox. Is salvation the work of God alone from start to finish? Absolutely. Does God save us according to His own purpose and grace? Certainly. Did God choose us in Christ before the foundation of the world? This is what the Bible says, and I am not compelled to explain away any of these passages. God providentially caused me to be born into a family where my mother would preach the Gospel to me while she changed my diaper. God brought tragedy into our home that would cause me to be concerned for the state of my soul. God gave me a mother who would actively evangelize me through that tragedy. God opened my eyes and my understanding so that I could believe. When I look back, I see the hand of God everywhere in the process of bringing me to a saving knowledge of Christ.

Am I saved today because (as my mother will tell you) I pestered her daily to explain how to get to heaven? Am I saved because I wanted to go to heaven to see my dad again? Am I saved because, on the way to church one Sunday, I insisted that my mom pull over to the side of the road so I could pray and ask Jesus to forgive my sins and take me to heaven? Of course not. No, no, and no.

And then again, yes! Of course! God is under no compulsion to save me or you or any other sinful wretch. But God has compelled Himself to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him (Hebrews 7:25). And God has commanded, “Look unto me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth: for I am God, and there is none else” (Isaiah 45:22). And God has pledged that “ye shall seek me, and find me, when ye shall search for me with all your heart” (Jeremiah 29:13). And “being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ: By whom also we have access by faith into this grace wherein we stand, and rejoice in hope of the glory of God” (Romans 5:1-2). And of course, “God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life” (John 3:16).

He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. (John 3:18)

Keep reading, though. Because the same passage says,

But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God. (John 3:21)

We find an unresolved paradox in Scripture, that “whosoever will may come,” and “it is God that worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure.” And we are compelled to believe both at the same time. I find no contradiction in calling men to repent and believe the Gospel, in encouraging them to cry out to God for salvation, to come to Him believing “that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.” As a matter of fact, no man will be saved who will not come to Christ for salvation. And no man will come to Christ for salvation unless the Father draws him.

No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day. (John 6:44)

So, this is where I differ from much of the pop-Calvinism I regularly hear. Whether it is a matter of overstating the case or an earnest desire to draw bold lines, I think most observers of the debate would say that Calvinists are not careful to acknowledge that there is a paradox between man’s freedom in coming to Christ and God’s sovereignty in calling men to salvation. I can’t resolve that paradox because the Bible doesn’t clarify the point where it is resolved. “Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world” (Acts 15:18). I would invite and encourage my Calvinist friends to acknowledge this paradox and to speak as if no system can adequately resolve it since God does not.

More to come…