Twelve Misconceptions about Calvinism

1. Calvinism is not system of theology that denies God’s universal love.
While there are some Calvinists who do deny God’s universal love for all man, this is certainly not a necessary or a central tenet of Calvinism. Calvinists do, however, believe that God has a particular type of love for the elect (an “electing love”), but most also believe that God loves all people (John 3:16). It is a mystery to Calvinist as to why he does not elect everyone. (More on this here.)
2. Calvinism is not a belief that God creates people in order to send them to hell.
Again, this is not representative of normative Calvinists. While supralapsarians do believe that God creates people to send them to hell, the majority of Calvinists are not supralapsarians. (More on this here.)
3. Calvinism is not belief that God is the author of evil.
Because of Calvinism’s high view of God’s sovereignty, many mistakenly believe that Calvinists hold God responsible for sin and evil. This is not true. There are very few Calvinists who believe that God is the author of evil. Most Calvinists believe that to ascribe responsibility for evil to God is heretical.
As John Calvin put it:
“. . . the Lord had declared that “everything that he had made . . . was exceedingly good” [Gen. 1:31]. Whence, then comes this wickedness to man, that he should fall away from his God? Lest we should think it comes from creation, God had put His stamp of approval on what had come forth from himself. By his own evil intention, then, man corrupted the pure nature he had received from the Lord; and by his fall drew all his posterity with him into destruction. Accordingly, we should contemplate the evident cause of condemnation in the corrupt nature of humanity-which is closer to us-rather than seek a hidden and utterly incomprehensible cause in God’s predestination. [Institutes, 3:23:8]”
4. Calvinism is not a belief in fatalism.
A fatalistic worldview is one in which all things are left to fate, chance, and a series of causes and effects that has no intelligent guide or ultimate cause. Calvinism believes that God (not fate) is in control, though Calvinists differ about how meticulous this control is.
5. Calvinism is not a denial of freedom.
Calvinists to do not believe that people are robots or puppets on strings. Calvinists believe in freedom and, properly defined, free will. While Calvinists believe that God is ultimately in control of everything, most are compatibalists, believing that he works in and with human freedom (limited though it may be). Calvinists believe in human responsibility at the same time as holding to a high view of God’s providential sovereignty. (More on this here.)
6. Calvinism is not s belief that God forces people to become Christians against their will.
Calvinists believe in what is called “irresistible grace.” This might not be the best name for it since it does not really communicate what is involved. Calvinists believe that people are dead in the sin (Eph 2:1), haters of God, with no ability to seek him in their natural state (Rom 3:11; John 6:44; 1 Cor 2:14). Since this is the case, God must first regenerate them so that they can have faith. Once regenerate, people do not need to be forced to accept God, but this is a natural reaction—a willing reaction—of one who has been born again and, for the first time, recognizes the beauty of God.
7. Calvinism is not a belief that you should only evangelize the elect.
No one knows who the elect are. I suppose that if there was a way to find out, both Calvinist and Arminians (the other primary option to Calvinism) would only evangelize the elect (since Arminians also believe only the elect will be saved even though they understand election differently). Since we don’t know, it is our duty to evangelize all people and nations. Some of the greatest evangelists in the history of Christianity, such as Charles Haddon Spurgeon and Jonathan Edwards, have held to the doctrine of unconditional election.
8. Calvinism is not a belief that God arbitrarily chooses people to be saved.
Calvinists believe that God elects some people to salvation and not others and that this election is not based on anything present or foreseen, righteous or unrighteous, in the individual, but upon his sovereign choice. But this does not mean that the choice is arbitrary, as if God is flipping a coin to see who is  saved and who is not. Calvinists believe that God has his reasons, but they are in his mysterious secret will.
9. Calvinism is not a system of thought that follows a man, John Calvin.
While Calvinists obviously respect John Calvin, they simply believe that he correctly understood and systematized some very important Apostolic teachings concerning election, man’s condition, and God’s sovereignty. However, much of this understanding did not originate with John Calvin, but can be seen in many throughout church history such as Aquinas, Anselm, and Augustine. Ultimately, Calvinists will argue, they follow rightly interpreted Scripture.
10. Calvinism is not a system that has to ignore or reinterpret passages of Scripture concerning human responsibility.
Calvinists believe that all people are responsible to do what is right, even though, as fallen children of Adam, they lack ability to do what is right (in a transcendent sense; see below) without God’s regenerating grace. Therefore, God’s call and commands apply to all people and all people are responsible for their rejection and rebellion.
11. Calvinists do not believe that no one can do any good thing at all.
Calvinists believe in what is called “total depravity” (so do Arminians). However, total depravity does not mean that people cannot ever do anything good. Calvinists believe that unregenerate people can do many good things and sometimes even act better than Christians. But when it comes to people’s disposition toward God and their acknowledgment of him for their abilities, gifts, and future, they deny him and therefore taint all that they are and do. An unbeliever, for example, can love and care for their children just as a believer can. In and of itself this is a very good thing. However, in relation to God this finds no eternal or transcendent favor since they are at enmity with him, the Giver of all things. Therefore, it might be said, while all people can do good, only the regenerate can do transcendent good.
12. Calvinists do not necessarily believe that God predestines (wills) everything, including the color of socks I chose this morning.
There is a spectrum to belief about God’s sovereignty in Calvinism. The one thing that unites all Calvinists is their belief in God’s sovereign choice to elect some people to salvation and not others. However, Calvinists differ concerning God’s involvement in other areas (for more on this, see here). Some Calvinists believe in what might be called “meticulous sovereignty”, where God has not only predestined people to salvation, but also he has predestined everything that occurs. As the old saying goes: “There is not a maverick molecule in the universe.” However, most Calvinists believe in what might be called “providential sovereignty.” Here, Calvinists would distinguish between God’s permissive will and his sovereign will. In his permissive will, many things happen that he permits, but is not necessarily bringing about as the first cause. In his sovereign will, many things happen because of his direct intervention (for more on this, see here).
by C Michael Patton

Whitefield's 1740 Letter to Wesley trying to convince Wesley of the errors of his Arminianism

Fascinating letter from Goerge Whitefield to John Wesley (HT: Borrowed Light). You'll remember that both these Englishmen were used mightily by God in the eighteenth century revival, and both were Anglican (turned Methodist) in terms of their ecclesiastical convictions, with much overlap in their theology. While Wesley is commonly regarded as the father of Methodism, Dallimore's magisterial 2-volume biography argues that Whitefield is more accurately seen as its founder, despite Wesley's undeniable organizational genius and ecclesial entrepreneurialism.

They differed, however, on some key soteriological matters. In this letter Whitefield seeks to convince Wesley of the errors of his Arminianism.

Note the tone with which Whitefield writes: brotherly, courteous, mourning over the need to disagree, mindful of his own fallibility. Loving. 'I am sure,' writes Whitefield at one point, 'I love you in the bowels of Jesus Christ, and think I could lay down my life for your sake; but yet, dear Sir, I cannot help strenuously opposing your errors upon this important subject.'

This is a model for us, brothers.

One bit especially struck me. Whitefield responds to Wesley's charge that election destroys the foundation for love and humility by saying,

Dear Mr. Wesley perhaps has been disputing with some . . . narrow-spirited men that held election, and then he infers that their . . . narrowness of spirit was owing to their principles? But does not dear Mr. Wesley know many dear children of God, who are predestinarians, and yet are meek, lowly, pitiful, courteous, tender-hearted, kind, of a catholic spirit, and hope to see the most vile and profligate of men converted? And why? Because they know God saved themselves by an act of his electing love, and they know not but he may have elected those who now seem to be the most abandoned. . . .

I beg you would observe that your inference is entirely set aside by the force of the Apostle's argument, and the language which he expressly uses in Colossians 3:12-13: 'Put on therefore, as the elect of God, holy and beloved, bowels of mercies, kindness, humbleness of mind, meekness, longsuffering . . .'

Here we see that the Apostle exhorts them to put on bowels of mercy, kindness, humbleness of mind, meekness, longsuffering, etc, upon this consideration: namely, because they were elect of God. And all who have experientially felt this doctrine in their hearts feel that these graces are the genuine effects of their being elected of God.

Read, consider, and grow, with me, into maturity.
Dane Ortlund

A Beautiful Conversation Between Calvinist Charles Simeon and Arminian John Wesley

Some of you will recall the conversation between Calvinist Charles Simeon (1759-1836) and Arminian John Wesley (1703-1791) about their commonality amidst the controversy:

[Simeon] Sir, I understand that you are called an Arminian; and I have been sometimes called a Calvinist; and therefore I suppose we are to draw daggers.  But before I consent to begin the combat, with your permission I will ask you a few questions.  Pray, Sir, do you feel yourself a depraved creature, so depraved that you would never have thought of turning to God, if God had not first put it into your heart?
[Wesley] Yes, I do indeed.
[Simeon] And do you utterly despair of recommending yourself to God by anything you can do; and look for salvation solely through the blood and righteousness of Christ?
[Wesley] Yes, solely through Christ.
[Simeon] But, Sir, supposing you were at first saved by Christ, are you not somehow or other to save yourself afterwards by your own works?
[Wesley] No, I must be saved by Christ from first to last.
[Simeon] Allowing, then, that you were first turned by the grace of God, are you not in some way or other to keep yourself by your own power?
[Wesley] No.
[Simeon] What then, are you to be upheld every hour and every moment by God, as much as an infant in its mother’s arms?
[Wesley] Yes, altogether.
[Simeon] And is all your hope in the grace and mercy of God to preserve you unto His heavenly kingdom?
[Wesley] Yes, I have no hope but in Him.
[Simeon] Then, Sir, with your leave I will put up my dagger again; for this is all my Calvinism; this is my election my justification by faith, my final perseverance: it is in substance all that I hold, and as I hold it; and therefore, if you please, instead of searching out terms and phrases to be a ground of contention between us, we will cordially unite in those things where in we agree.

Cited in Handley Carr Glyn Moule’s 1892 biography, Charles Simeon, p. 79f.

Why I Am Not an Arminian

That's the title of a 2004 IVP book by Robert Peterson and Mike Williams. (They preferred the positive title Why I Am a Calvinist but the publisher wanted to retain balance with the simultaneously written Why I Am Not a Calvinist by Jerry Walls and Joe Dongell.

Peterson and Williams hit a home run and I find it to be one of the clearest and most persuasive defenses of Reformed soteriology available. But what is most striking about this book is its tone. From the start, Peterson and Williams refuse to castigate their Arminian interlocutors, repeating time and again that they all share in a common faith and are brothers in the Lord. Having sat in classes with both of of these men I can attest that what they write is how they live.

Here are a few excerpts from the introductory chapter. I commend the whole book.

By and large, Calvinists feel duty bound to attack Arminianism at every opportunity. And far too often the debate between Calvinists and Arminians has failed to glorify God, promote understanding or honor one another as fellow members of the body of Christ. It is our aim, however, to treat our Arminian brothers and sisters in Christ as we would want to be treated. . . .

The Arminian Christian believes that Jesus Christ is God come in the flesh to save sinners and that the saving work of Christ comes to the sinner by way of the grace of God received through faith. Whatever issues relevant to salvation we disagree upon, let us agree on this: the Calvinist and the Arminian are brothers in Christ. Both belong to the household of faith. The issue of debate is not between belief and unbelief but rather which of two Christian perspectives better represents the biblical portrayal of the divine-human relationship in salvation and the contributions of both God and man in human history.

Christians may disagree with each other, and disagree profoundly over issues close to the center of the faith, yet affirm one another as fellow believers. For some on both sides, we are sure that this might seem to subtract from the seriousness of the divide between Calvinism and Arminianism. We do not seek to disvalue the issues of contention. They are real and important. . . . But neither do we want to overestimate the debate. In the division between Christianity and Islam, the Arminian is our brother. . . .

With all of the foregoing in mind, we will seek to write under a number of self-imposed strictures that we hope will help us in addressing the issues of the contention without adding to the strife of the debate. Far too often, polemical works are not actually targeted at the other side of the debate. That is to say, they are not aimed at engaging the other side in discussion, or at seeking to persuade the other of the plausibility or truth of the author's own position. Many of the discussions we have read--from both sides of the debate--seem to be written to those who already agree with the author. The point often seems to be one of arming one's own troops, giving them ammunition for future firefights.

We will not follow this strategy. We write as Calvinists to Arminians, as persons who hold the Word of God precious and worthy of our most careful reflection to other believers who share that same commitment of the heart. (from pp. 10-14)

Amen.

The point here, I say for neither the first nor the last time on this blog, is not to be a Calvinist and also to be really, really nice. That's not enough. It's not merely a both/and. It's an if/then.

Haughtily held Calvinism is inherently self-contradictory and betrays Arminian functional belief beneath a veneer of Calvinist doctrinal belief. If we are confessing Calvinists and yet are impatient, splintering, divisive, condescending, or emotionally elitist, etc, then we're not really Calvinists. It doesn't matter what we say we believe. We don't really believe it's all--all--of grace.

To lack grace in our living is to deny grace in our theology.
Dane Ortlund

What, Essentially, Is Reformed Theology?

In a word, Reformed theology is fundamentally about grace. . . .

At its heart, Calvinism is simply a lens that magnifies a persistent theme in the narrative of God's self-revelation: that everything depends on God. Everything is a gift.

--James K. A. Smith, Letters to a Young Calvinist (Grand Rapids: Brazos, 2010), 14

Amen!

This wonderful book is a short, accessible series of 23 letters, each a few pages long, written from the perspective of an older saint who is helping walk a younger man into the Reformed faith. The two consistent themes throughout the book are (1) Reformed theology is inherently self-contradictory if it breeds pride, and (2) there is much more to Reformed theology than the five points.

Our brother Justin Taylor has another nice excerpt from the book here. Dr. Smith briefly introduces the book at his blog here. Tullian helpfully comments on one of the main themes of the book here.
Dane Ortlund

Does Calvinism Discourage Evangelism?

The short answer (to the title of this post) is: it shouldn’t. In fact, Calvinism, properly conceived, is a great motivator to share the good news of salvation with the lost. But I understand it doesn’t seem like that at first blush.
“If God is decisive in salvation, then why bother presenting the gospel?  I mean, if they’re elect they will come to Jesus somehow, with or without me. And if they aren’t elect why bother in the first place?”
This objection makes some logical sense, but it is not biblical logic.  The Bible has no problem joining the absolute sovereignty of God with a zeal for evangelism.  For example, in Romans 9, where Paul declares “God will have compassion on whom he has compassion and harden whom he hardens,” Paul first says in verse 1: “I am speaking the truth in Christ–I am not lying; my conscience bears me witness in the Holy Spirit–that I have great sorrow and unceasing anguish in my heart. For I could wish that I myself were accursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my brothers, my kinsmen according to the flesh.”    He believed in election and his heart broke for the lost.
Same thing in Romans 10: “Brothers, my heart’s desire and prayer to God for the Israelites is that they may be saved.”  Wait a minute, is this the same Paul who quoted “Jacob I have loved and Esau I have hated?”  Of course it is. Paul was passionate about God’s right to choose whomever he wishes and he was also passionate about winning the lost.
In fact, election helps spur on faithful mission and evangelism.  That’s not to say that Calvinists haven’t misused election in the past to excuse inactivity, but that’s not what election did for Paul.  When Paul was in Corinth and had it up to here with those rascals and was ready to get out of Dodge, do you know what kept him there?  Acts 18:9-11 says, “The Lord spoke to Paul in a vision: ‘Do not be afraid; keep on speaking, do not be silent.  For I am with you, and no one is going to attack and harm you, because I have many people in this city.’  So Paul stayed for a year and a half, teaching them the word of God.”  A strong belief in God’s sovereignty is what will keep a missionary on the field when there seems to be no harvest.  As Paul said to Timothy, “I endure everything for the sake of the elect” (2 Tim. 2:10).
God can work without means, or contrary to means, but he usually works through means; which means…he uses us.  If you get in a bad car accident, God could save you by angelic intervention, or he could save you by a miracle when you should have been dead, but he can also save you with your seat belt.  God uses means to achieve his purposes, and evangelism (and prayer for that matter) is one of those means.
God ordained proclamation to accomplish his purposes.  We share the gospel out of joyful obedience, and in hope that the God who appoints the end also ordains the means. Someone asked Spurgeon once, “Why do you preach if you believe in election?”  His response: “Because the elect don’t have yellow stripes down their back.”  In other words, we don’t whom the elect are, so we declare the gospel without discrimination, trusting that the sheep will recognize the master’s voice.
Actually, the only evangelistic hope we really have in a hard-hearted, disobedient world is that the Lord has elect sheep out there, wandering though they now may be, who will hear his voice when we open our mouths to speak on behalf of the Good Shepherd.
Kevin DeYoung

Calvinism in the Christian Science Monitor

Josh Burek from the Christian Science Monitor has written a lengthy, even-handed article on the comeback of Calvinism. The article’s subtitle gives the gist: “In America’s Christian faith, a surprising comeback of rock-ribbed Calvinism is challenging the Jesus-is-your-buddy gospel of modern evangelism.”
Like many previous exposes on the Reformed resurgence, this one is part history, part human interest story, and part theological analysis. This particular article looks in detail at Mark Dever and Capitol Hill Baptist Church in Washington D.C.

As morning light filters into a fourth-floor room on a Sunday, students huddle on tiered seats, listening to a lecture on substitutionary atonement. The teacher poses a tough question, but a hand shoots into the air, eager to answer with a recitation of the week’s memory verse from I Peter 3:18: “For Christ died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God.”
Scholars and seminarians call this systematic theology. Kindergartners at CHBC just call it Sunday school.
Their parents are downstairs, absorbing seminars, prayers, and a Scripture-saturated sermon that add up to five hours of worship over the day. Just before noon, the adults jot notes as they listen to an hour-long sermon on II Samuel 5-9. These chapters cover King David’s glorious reign over Israel, but Dever doesn’t skip the tough verses, such as when God strikes Uzzah dead for trying to steady the ark of the covenant.
“Friends, have we sinned like Uzzah?” he asks.
Such statements are meant to prick the hearts of his listeners. Yet he often follows up the hard questions with reassuring comments like: “You and I should not draw a breath today, without living for the praise of God’s glory.”

Don’t read the article to feel important (isn’t that the opposite of the theological message we proclaim?!). But read it to hear how others describe the New Calvinism and, more importantly, to learn more about a very good church.
Kevin DeYoung

TULIPs, DAISYs, and ROSES, oh my! by Allen Yeh

Most people know that I am a Calvinist (see my blog here for explanation). In fact, my good friends who are not Calvinists tease me about it—but I think they just have election envy.
Calvinists use a handy acronym called TULIP to outline the points of our theology. These stand for:
-Total depravity (that everyone, without exception, is sinful).
-Unconditional election (that God sovereignly chooses people not based on any merit of them).
-Limited atonement (that Christ died for the elect).
-Irresistible grace (that if God calls you to Himself, you have no choice but to come).
-Perseverance of the saints (once saved, always saved—you can’t fall away from the faith).
Arminians, however, refute Calvinism. Instead of stressing God’s sovereignty, they stress human responsibility. So some Arminians have come up with a DAISY to counteract the TULIP! This stands for:
-Deliberate sin (it is humans who make the choice to sin, not because we have a sinful nature), e.g. Isaiah 53:6.
-All-encompassing call (salvation is available to everyone who seeks or desires it), e.g. Revelation 22:17.
-Infinite love (God desires for everyone to be saved, not just the “elect”), e.g. 2 Peter 3:9.
-Spontaneous faith (faith comes not from God but from within a person), e.g. Romans 10:10.
-Yieldedness of the Saints (assurance of salvation comes from constantly watching/checking oneself, not from an automatic “pass”), e.g. 2 Peter 1:10.
However, there have been people who have tried to navigate a middle path between Calvinism and Arminianism, between the TULIP and the DAISY, who think that there must be a happy medium between divine sovereignty and human responsibility.
One such way is called Molinism, named for a Renaissance Jesuit theologian, Luis de Molina, from Spain. He advocated something called “middle knowledge” in which he maintained that predestination and free will are not incompatible. Biola professor William Lane Craig is a modern-day proponent of this theology. Basically, “middle knowledge” maintains that though some truths are necessary (such as definitions of things), and other truths are contingent (God is the cause of certain things), there lies a third category in between these which says that some things are true without God being the primary cause of them. This gives validity to human responsibility without taking God entirely out of the picture. It keeps God’s omniscience intact by recognizing that He knows what we will do in any given situation, so all He has to do is create the circumstances in which we will act in the way He wants us to do without forcing our hand.
A new book just came out last month by Kenneth Keathley called Salvation and Sovereignty: A Molinist Approach. Keathley came up with this handy acronym for Molinism called ROSES which stands for:
-Radical depravity
-Overcoming grace
-Sovereign election
-Eternal life
-Singular redemption
Cute. But isn’t Molinism, at the end of the day, just a modified form of Calvinism?
 The Scriptorium