Welcome to the blog of author Randy Alcorn!

Tuesday, October 27, 2009

Where do you stand on the Calvinism and Arminianism debate, and what resources do you recommend?

I've often been asked, Where do you stand on the Calvinism and Arminianism debate, and what resources do you recommend?

I came to Christ in a church that was Arminian, so that was naturally my early leaning. I went to a Bible college and seminary that were both middle of the road where neither hard core Calvinism nor Arminianism often surfaced in class, though on a continuum, some faculty would lean more toward one than the other.

As the years went by, struck by the power of God's sovereignty and grace, I became increasingly closer to what is called a Calvinist rather than an Arminian (though I dislike both labels). As I say in other articles on the EPM website, I believe that Christ died for all, not just the elect, which is the one and only major tenet where I depart from Calvinism (not for logical reasons, but simply because after studying the passages they still seem to me to be saying Christ died for everyone.) So I am what might be called a four point Calvinist, though many 5-point Calvinists hate that term, believing it all stands or fall together. Logically, I see what they mean, it's just my understanding of biblical passages that gives me pause. (It's not because I haven't read extensively and discussed the matter with many people I respectfully disagree with.)

Interesting to reflect back on how my perspective changed over the years. I will never forget the horror I felt when I read Romans 9-10 as a young Christian, and the confusion I felt when reading passages speaking of election and predestination. Ironically, many of the same passages that once plagued me are now my greatest source of comfort. God's sovereign grace is precious to me...as I know it is also to many who see things a bit differently when it comes to election and God's work in our lives.

Though he was an outspoken Calvinist, Charles Spurgeon--a man whose theology I love--was opposed by both Arminians and hyper-Calvinists. He said some things that I think are important in this whole debate, including this: "My love of consistency with my own doctrinal views is not great enough to allow me knowingly to alter a single text of Scripture. I have great respect for orthodoxy, but my reverence for inspiration is far greater. I would sooner a hundred times over appear to be inconsistent with myself than be inconsistent with the word of God." I assembled some of Spurgeon's thoughts that pertain to this at Spurgeon's Theology: Embracing Biblical Paradox.

The one systematic theology I love most and use most is Wayne Grudem's. Wayne is a Calvinist, but I like the fact that be seems always to seek first to be a biblicist. I get the feeling he doesn't take a position because that's what Calvinists are supposed to do, but because he thinks Scripture teaches it. If you are looking on a book that capably explains and defends the five points of Calvinism, here's one option.

Other resources regarding Calvinism and Arminianism, and I am deliberately trying to give you a wide variety here, not just those that reflect my own position:

An interesting book is Norm Geisler's Chosen But Free: A Balanced View of Divine Election. Then, The Potter's Freedom, by James R. White, is mainly a response to Geisler's book, which White views not as balanced but mostly a restatement of the Arminian position and a rejection of the major tenets of Calvinism. The most recent versions of Geisler's book include an appendix with his response to White's critique.

Another interesting book is Beyond Calvinism and Arminianism: An Inductive, Mediate Theology of Salvation, by C. Gordon Olson. Olson also thinks he is taking a balanced view, reconciling the two theologies. Once again, most Calvinists will conclude that he is simply a moderate Arminian, and that there isn't much of a real middle ground between camps. But he raises some interesting points.

An unapologetic and fur-raising rebuke of Calvinism is Dave Hunt's What Love Is This? Calvinism's Misrepresentation of God. I usually disagree with the author, though if points were given for feeling deeply about issues, he'd score high. The publisher of that book invited a Calvinist to take on Dave Hunt in debate form in a subsequent book. The Calvinist is James R. White (who wrote The Potter's Freedom). Dave Hunt and James White's debate is laid out in what I think is a fascinating book entitled Debating Calvinism: Five Points, Two Views.

This is an interesting book in that it is a true written debate, full of sparks and fire. In each chapter one man presents his own position, his opponent responds, the original writer defends, the opponent gives his final remarks, then the original presenter gets the last word. In the first half of the book the Calvinist, James White, is the presenter. Then, in the second half of the book Dave Hunt is the presenter in each chapter of some aspect of the Arminian position, with the same format of response, defense, and final remarks.

The book is insightful and sometimes lively and entertaining, especially when these men start getting under each other's skin (and boy, do they; even though they and their editor kept it in check, you have the feeling that they would like to slap each other sometimes). Though I found myself agreeing with White way more than Hunt, sometimes I disagreed with White and agreed with Hunt. (Okay, not all that often.)

In all fairness to the Arminian position, Dave Hunt is not its finest advocate. He seems often not to answer his opponent and just keeps repeating statements such as "God is love," as if that proves Arminianism. (Of course, some people imagine it also proves universalism, that there is no Hell, etc.) But because of the energy involved in the two men going at each other, the book is as entertaining as any theology book I've read. And though no hard-boiled Calvinist or Arminian will likely change his mind as a result of the book, many Scripture-searchers who are undecided may find it helpful.


www.facebook.com/randyalcorn
www.twitter.com/randyalcorn
www.randyalcorn.blogspot.com

http://www.epm.org/

Comments:

Michael and Rie said...

Thanks for answering this question, Randy. I appreciated your post here on what can be a difficult issue for many ;-)

A good friend and I often talk of these things, as we both like reformed teachers like Piper etc, and have some strongly Calvinist friends, but just aren't that sure ourselves.

Like you, I'd call myself a "4-point" Calvinist (as much as that irks some), as I lean towards a Calvinist viewpoint, but I just can't see how the Bible says that Jesus only died for the elect.

Anyway, it's a lovely day outside and I have work to continue with :-)

Blessings,
Mike
New Zealand

The Circuit Rider said...

My thoughts exactly. I'm from a Wesleyan background, but still lean towards Calvinism sometimes as Salvation is so many times referred to as a gift in Scripture.I realize we can turn our back on God...but I believe the true Christian always comes back...You got me thinking about this again...God bless,keith

Bill N. said...

I appreciate your sharing this. There was a time I would have without hesitation called my self a "5 Point Calvinist". In more recent years I trimmed that to "4.95". A book that has been helpfull to me was Dr. Ronald Mayers "Evangelical Perspectives: Towards a Biblical Balance".

Peace....

Dan said...

This is a controversy I have come up against many times, and yet I still seem to be learning. I tend to believe that free will and God's foreknowledge are simultaneously correct and that they do not contradict each other as much as it might appear. For example, if you see a child examining the cookie jar he's not supposed to get into, you might be able to predict whether or not he will get into the jar when the adults leave the kitchen, but that does not mean you have made the choice for him.

It's a tough question. Clearly what bothers many people is the innate concept that justice is predicated on morality which is predicated upon free will. If someone is accused of wrong doing, they will almost always attempt to appeal to this innate concept of justice as though God had written it into our hearts. "It's not my fault. He gave me no choice. It was a accident. I couldn't help it. It was the right thing to do. I didn't know."

Sometimes I think Romans 9 is abused and taken in a way that it was never to be taken. It is almost as if one were to say, "You caught God blaming you for forcing your hand, but you're not allowed to make that argument because God gave you life and He's bigger."

To me, it seems to be saying something more like, "If you made a bad choice, then you should not be blaming God by claiming He gave you no other options, and just because He knew what you were going to do doesn't mean He is the one guilty of making that choice for you."

Part of what I struggle with is the notion that God is timeless, that He lives in all times at all times with perfect memory of the past and perfect anticipation of the future, and yet is able to create beings with free will into that kind of a universe.

But, given that we're finite beings, I don't expect we will ever be able to model the mind of God within our own minds or even model the mind of another person in ours.

We'll just have to trust God and His Word.

barrywallace said...

I think this paragraph expresses my own position at least as well as I could express it myself:

"I believe that Christ died for all, not just the elect, which is the one and only major tenet where I depart from Calvinism (not for logical reasons, but simply because after studying the passages they still seem to me to be saying Christ died for everyone.) So I am what might be called a four point Calvinist, though many 5-point Calvinists hate that term, believing it all stands or fall together. Logically, I see what they mean, it's just my understanding of biblical passages that gives me pause. (It's not because I haven't read extensively and discussed the matter with many people I respectfully disagree with.)"

Thanks!!

Anonymous said...

Randy,
I have studied this issue for many years and have at various times found myself all over the map. A big frustration to me is that we have essentially been handed two options...Calvinism or Arminianism. I propose a third option...neither. That third option? First, God is God; He is Sovereign in all things. He is a chooser and initiator, and it must be that way if He is God and we as sinners are to have any hope - no question about it. Second, there is evidence all over the Scriptures of man's need to respond to God and his accountability for that response. The Scriptures, IMO, present these seemingly opposing positions but they are there if we let God's word simply say what it says. How they connect is in the realm of mystery and I'm finally content to leave it alone. How can Jesus be both God and man? Don't know, but it's there and I believe it. How can God sovereignly choose some and yet hold all responsible? Don't know, but it's there and I believe it. Let's simply let God's word say what it says and enjoy the mystery.
Blessings.

Fred Butler said...

Also note that White's book, "The Potter's Freedom," has been released as a second edition with an extensive appendix responding to Geisler's response to White in the second edition of his book.

Being one of those hardcore Calvinists, probably the best treatment on the subject is Thomas and Steele's little book on the Five Points of Calvinism: Defined, Documented, and Defended. It's mercifully short, easily read, and well documented with scripture and great for a novice.

Anonymous said...

Thanks for your comments about this controversial issue. Have you considered Piper's paper on the Two Wills of God? In the paper Piper's argues that God desires all people to be saved yet only chooses some. This is slightly different than your main beef with Calvinism (the scope of Christ's death) but similar enough to put my mind at ease.

Matt Nelson

Diane R said...

I'm having the same trek you had...I find myself in the middle of the divide with some toes over on the Calvinistic side so far. What I find unhelpful to those of us who are making this journey is wrong definitions of both Calvinism and Arminianism. Another book I would add to yours is the one by Professor Roger E. Olson, formerly of Baylor University (I don't know where he is now), "Arminian Theology: Myths and Realities." In this book he shows from the original writings of Jacobus Arminius and his followers (The Remonstrants) how what we regard as Arminianism today would have little in common with what he and his followers believed and taught.

BoldLion said...

Thank you for sharing this with us!

As for me, I am leading toward Calvinist. I have read a lot about elect and do believe in that. So, I think and believe that I am a 5 points Calvinist but not a hyper one. I still have a lot to learn.

John Piper have a lot of wonderful post about Calvinist belief which I had found it to be very helpful as well as Got Questions too.

I don't believe that you can lose your salvation as Arminiusism does.

Hungry to eat His Word,
'Guerite ~ BoldLion

Bradley R said...

Thanks for this post. In regard to the passages you've studied, what are the passages that convince you against what is termed 'limited atonement.' Also, have you read John Owen's 'The Death of Death in the Death of Jesus Christ.' I was wondering if you found his treatise convincing or unconvincing. Thanks for this post though, I appreciate your ministry.

Simon said...

Thanks Randy. That's a handy summary of the material that's out there. I am searching for an answer to the very question you're discussing, and am happily un-decided!

I would like to put two cents worth in here on one of the titles you disussed - 'Debating Calvinism'. I purchased it hoping for a thoughtful and balanced debate. How disappointed I was! Hunt is terrible advocate for Arminianism, and used the Bible questionably. White was much better, but I sensed that he was as frustrated with the book as I was. One of the worst books I've read.

On another note, William L. Craig's position is a fascinating alternative - Middle Knowledge Arminianism, or Molinism. I haven't done all the reading on this yet, but have found Craig's expression compelling.

Anonymous said...

Thanks, Randy, for your willingness to address this for us and for your recommendations. Such a sticky wicket, as they say! Our finite minds tend to be most comfortable with labels, lists, and boxes, I think. I vote for none of the preceding. Follow Jesus. Could it possibly be that simple??? ;)

Grace and peace,
Kim

Anette Acker said...

Although I am an Arminian (because I don't think there's such a thing as a 2.5 point Calvinist), I have been most influenced by Andrew Murray, who was Dutch Reformed. I like Andrew Murray because most of his books are about God's grace and how we can experience it more fully.

But he talks about grace in a way that appeals to an Arminian like me because he doesn't treat it like it's "irresistible." His books are almost always a call to surrender to God's grace, and to me that denotes respect for the human will. Jesus stands at the door and knocks; he doesn't beat it down.

We are born in bondage to sin (Calvinists and Arminians agree about that), but we're called to freedom. We're also called to lay down the will and allow God to fill us completely. Andrew Murray makes God's sovereignty and human freedom seem like very compatible concepts. So I would say that he comes close to transcending the Arminian/Calvinist divide.

Anette Acker said...

Randy, do you think that the quote by Spurgeon is an argument against Calvinism? Why, in his efforts to be true to the Scriptures, did he have to be inconsistent with TULIP? Isn't the truth internally consistent?

I ask that question because after reading Future Grace (which is very biblical) I was confused about how it fit into TULIP. Piper's central message seems to be that we should not resist God's grace (he tells us to "yield" to grace and not "nullify" it by self-sufficiency). How do we resist irresistible grace? Because of the particular word choice of TULIP ("irresistible"), that would not be a paradox; it would be a logical impossibility.

Anette Acker said...
This post has been removed by the author.
Anette Acker said...

I really apologize for commenting again, but I just realized that I might have seemed critical. Nothing could be further from the truth. I was actually very surprised to find that I agreed with almost everything in Future Grace, and I'm definitely an Arminian.

I just don't see how the book fits into TULIP, but maybe that's because I can't wrap my Arminian brain around it. He obviously views what he teaches as Calvinism. And I don't know how strictly Calvinists interpret TULIP.

But obviously the differences between the two camps are not that great!

Drgoodbones said...

I simply cannot connect the ideas of free will and foreknowledge. It seems to me that, logically, if it can be known in advance, it MUST happen. That is not to say that God causes a man to make a particular "CHOICE"; that "choice" may be the result of a chain of cause and effect. Nonetheless, it is then "determined", and not "free".

Dan said...

I think a lot of people get their minds tangled up over the issue of "lust" in regard to sin. I don't believe for a moment that the sin of lust is unavoidable. I believe temptation can present itself to us against our will, but to lust is a choice. In other words, we are not a helpless victim of lust against our will but a guilty participant having the freedom to choose whether or not to lust, and when we chose to lust, we sinned.

This is one of the few points I disagreed with Ray Comfort on in his Way of the Master training videos. He asked a guy if he ever lied, stole, lusted, etc., and the guy said he had never lusted, so Ray came back with, "Oh, come on, you're not a homosexual are you?", so he confessed, "Ok, so I guess I lusted".

To me, this waters down the guilt of sin substantially by assuming we are hardwired to sin whether we like it or not, and therefore our guilt is either by creation or inheritance but not by any fault of our own. If we are sinners because of someone else's sin, then we are being blamed for someone else's sin. And when I read Romans 9, I don't see it scolding people for saying this. I see it as scolding people for claiming that our sinfulness was hardwired into us by the hand of God. In other words, I see Romans 9 as chastising us because we took God's foreknowledge and used it to claim God made the choice and blamed us. In other words, we're using shoddy evidence to prove God predestined us and were our conclusion true, then we would be absolutely justified in blaming God for our sin because God would be worse than a tempter; He would be forcing our hand into sin.

Even so, I cannot believe for a minute that we could possible be saved without the grace of God. But if we were predestined to salvation, we could never have been under any danger from which to be saved. And if we were predestined to be damned, then there would be no possibility of salvation for us. So, then either way, there could be no such thing as salvation as their would either be no danger or no rescue.

Anette Acker said...

I think I understand why I can agree with almost everything in Future Grace (except the chapter about the "golden chain") and still be an Arminian. The book is about how to live by faith in God's grace, something that is clearly revealed in the Bible. The Bible is internally consistent and clear about everything we need to know, so with respect to those things it is possible for an Arminian and a Calvinist to agree.

However, all the controversy surrounding TULIP is about God's sovereignty and how exactly he saves us. Those things are not clear in the Bible. In fact, one thing that IS clear is that God has no intention of revealing them to us: ("Why do you ask my name, seeing it is wonderful?" "I am who I am.") All our efforts to pin down and define God only lead to frustration and division between believers.

So after reading Future Grace, I realize that it is possible for Calvinists and Arminians to agree on everything that is revealed, while remaining diametrically opposed about those things that are not.

Wes said...

I have recently become a Calvinist. I haven't read any of the books mentioned, but I have added many of them to my list of books to purchase and read. ;-)

I would highly recommend the DVD and free Study Guides, Amazing Grace: The History & Theology of Calvinism. They really helped me to see both the history and the biblical basis for the Doctrines of Grace! It covers all areas very well, including the area that Mr. Alcorn has an issue with.

I also highly recommend the book, Chosen by God, by R.C. Sproul. Dr. Sproul does an excellent job of handling each of the Doctrines of Grace in a very well-balanced, caring and loving way.

MichaelJJ said...

Randy, have you ever read Bruce Ware's argument for so called Unlimited Limited Atonement (i.e. 4-Pt Calvinism)? It's very well done from the perspective of Biblical argument. I was a full 5-Pointer until the last couple years as I've started to see how the Limited Atonement view is (in my opinion) overreaching with respect to scripture. You can Google his name and Limited Atonement to find it.

Best Regards,

Michael