Calvinism - A Theological Heresy

My two previous commentaries about losing salvation encouraged debate from those entrenched in either a Calvinist or Arminian position, challenging them to question my view on the matter of eternal security. I was categorised as belonging to one camp or the other—yet, as it happens, I disagree with both positions. Either position creates unavoidable tension on the words of Jesus and the character of God. There are seven basic tenets to each position—when combined, they ultimately contradict their own presuppositions about Jesus and God. While purporting to support free will, the possibility of free will, being free, is invalidated by the restrictions placed upon it. Sadly, each position achieves little more than inspiring cynicism and doubt in the story of Jesus Christ.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eXYP37p6oT4

Whether we address five-point Calvinism (T.U.L.I.P.) or seven-point Calvinism, the differences are little more than a distraction, because it’s more or less a small box nested inside a big box. Calvinists support the idea of salvation by faith through grace— this appears correct until we examine how it’s contextualised. Calvinists understand grace as limited to those subjected to God’s “irresistible election”; thus, unilateral pre-election by God fundamentally contradicts traditional soteriology by rejecting the multilateral extension of grace through faith. The logical conclusion of this rejection is that “free will” is essentially redundant. Therefore, God's “irresistible election” saves only those chosen by God—everyone else is rejected by default, having no option or choice in the matter. The Calvinist allusion to “grace through faith” is contextualised within a framework of prepared works that serve to justify the “irresistible election” that’s already been given, rather than suggesting grace extended to all, and believing in faith as the basis for responding to the call of salvation. Once free will and faith are rendered obsolete, Calvinist theology inevitably contradicts the redemptive purpose of Christ—in fact, any escatological purpose of Christ. Therefore, Calvinism is not only inconsistent with Romans 10—it fundamentally represents an entirely different gospel, and therefore consistent with a soteriological heresy. As such, everything it feeds into becomes theologically corrupt.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7y4yjSwEkfY&t=2661s

Mark 4:11-12 may be one of the most difficult challenges for Calvinists promoting the idea of “total depravity”—the inability of Man to say yes to the Gospel message."The secret of the kingdom of God has been given to you. (the Disciples) But to those on the outside, everything is said in parables, so that, "'they may be ever seeing but never perceiving, and ever hearing but never understanding; otherwise they might turn and be forgiven!” If total depravity were true, and no one, of their own free will, can say yes and receive the Gospel message, why does Jesus speak in parables to keep the masses from receiving the message and being saved? If the impossibility exists, why were parables even necessary?

The other doctrine I have less to say about because it’s more consistent with traditional soteriology as defined in Ephesians 1:13-14. However, it has one significant flaw in tenet 7 that introduces the idea of “provisional salvation”—suggesting salvation can be lost and this depends on our decision to remain engaged in Christ, and/or God’s decision to reject a believer. In most cases, the debate revolves around the idea that Man can reject God “after being justified”, and thus lose salvation. A matter I might agree with, IF Man was structurally responsible for salvation, at the outset. However, “God’s justification” of the believer is God’s decision alone—from his “foreknowledge” of the heart, of those he chooses to save, and His knowledge of their faith to believe, and it's God who “marks the believer with a seal”— the “deposit” of the Holy Spirit—as a “guarantee” of that salvation. To suggest that Man will decide, fall away, or reject Christ after justification, completely misunderstands the absolute sovereignty of God’s foreknowledge.

Below are the seven essential tenets of Calvin and Armenian doctrine, with my response in Italics:

God's Sovereignty

1. Calvinism: In Calvinist thinking, God's sovereignty is unconditional, unlimited, and absolute. All things are predetermined by the good pleasure of God's will. God foreknew because of his planning. There is no such thing as free will under Calvinist doctrine; everything is predetermined, planned, and controlled by God. Humanity doesn’t have a choice about life or salvation because God’s plan has already decided who will be saved. This statement alone challenges the reality of free will by suggesting that Jesus Christ, sent by God, was born, lived, died, and rose, only for those God had already decided to save. I would suggest this view compromises any truth the Bible has to say about the character of God.

2. Arminianism: To the Arminian, God is sovereign, but has limited his control in correspondence with man's freedom and response. God's decrees (what he decides) are associated with his foreknowledge of man's response. I agree—that election, justification and sealing stem from God’s foreknowledge of man’s response. However, in scripture, this response is to Christ's redemptive work on the cross. Armenian doctrine suggests this initial response and born-again experience is not secure, it’s conditional and judged on our perseverance as illustrated in No14. Thus, justification and sealing are not secure, contradicting the entire New Testament narrative. Unfortunately, Armenians do not consider the foreknowledge of God when proposing the possibility of falling away and thus fail to see that foreknowledge of those he justifies ensures the possibility will never happen. The Bible speaks of justification and sealing in Christ—from the moment we are “born again” (born of the holy spirit), not the result of our perseverance. The Armenian view does not reconcile perseverance with the process of sanctification, and thus falls into the same error as those who preach conditional salvation today.

Man's Depravity

3. Calvinism: Because of the Fall, man is depraved and dead in his sin. Man is unable to save himself and, therefore, God must initiate salvation. I disagree—This is consistent with the Calvinist idea of everything being determined (refer No.1). In reality, this invalidates the words of Jesus Christ himself when he stated that he was the door that enabled all mankind to initiate their salvation. We choose by responding to Jesus Christ as the way, the truth, and the life. Jesus’ statements concerning salvation were predicated on our ability to exercise free will.

4. Arminianism: Concerning depravity, that people are depraved and corrupt, but they can provide the decisive impulse to trust God with the general divine assistance or call that God gives to all humanity. I agree—God gave everyone the freedom to believe, accept, reject or receive the redemptive work of the cross. Salvation is justification and sealing in Christ, and begins with our decision to believe in faith, but sanctification takes the rest of our lives. Unfortunately, some refer to sanctification as a “continuous or conditional salvation”, which is compelling until you consider what is meant by the condition referred to. Many Christians today agree with the Armenian view of conditional salvation through perseverance; however, this view creates an ever-increasing disharmony across the entire canon, because the texts used to support this view are applied incorrectly. Examples might be when referring to texts about being saved, or continuously being saved, falling away, or persevering. The context in all these passages is sanctification, not justification. Those supporting conditional salvation do not appear to accept that justification and sealing are one-time events, with no suggestion of future removal by God or the actions of those to whom it has been given. All born-again believers are continuously being saved (sanctified), and generally through trials, hardship, pain and suffering.

Election

5. Calvinism: Before the foundation of the world, God unilaterally chose (or "elected") some, but not all, to be saved. Election has nothing to do with a man's future response. Those to be elected are chosen by God. I disagree—Under the Calvinist doctrine, there is no free will; it’s an illusion because everything is predetermined and orchestrated. Therefore, this doctrine suggests that God’s grace to all humanity, through Christ, is not true (Acts 2:21, John 10:9). Refer No. 1.

6. Arminianism: Election is based on God's foreknowledge of those who would believe in him through faith. In other words, God elected those who would choose him (predestination) according to his foreknowledge of their decision. Conditional election is based on man’s decision to respond to God's offer of salvation. I agree—The Bible states that God’s election is determined through his foreknowledge of any individual decision. However, I do have concerns about the Armenian interpretation of the word election when it's applied under the condition of perseverance (No. 14). God can predestine, justify, seal and glorify before we are born, even though it takes place upon our acceptance into the body of Christ, but not if we're going to fall away at some point in the future. Thankfully, God’s foreknowledge already knows the outcome, and he doesn’t need the idea of perseverance to decide who will be saved, because there’s nothing unknown that isn't already known? Perseverance theology mocks the sovereignty of God’s foreknowledge, and I wrote about this in “Are we determined?”. The Armenian view of conditional election is predicated on its interpretation of words such as perseverance and free will, so the allusion to faith unto salvation is, largely, meaningless because the matter of perseverance can never inspire certainty to those who follow this teaching. It’s one thing if conditional election refers to Christ as the condition, but quite another if conditional election refers to perseverance. (No 14). Therefore, the Armenian doctrine misrepresents the power and authority of the cross, incorrectly subjects justification and sanctification to conditional uncertainty, and relegates eternity to the whims of perseverance.

Christ's Atonement

7. Calvinism: Jesus Christ died to save only those who were given to him (elected) by the Father in eternity past. Since Christ did not die for everyone, but only for the elect, his atonement is wholly successful. I disagree—this suggests the Calvinists have taken passages such as Jn 6:39 to mean that it’s God who decides for Christ, who will be saved. This undermines the gospel of Christ as the redeemer of “all” humanity. The phrase “given me” should be interpreted as God speaking through his foreknowledge, not because God decides and overrides the free will of anyone's decision to believe in Christ. Think of the uncertainty this view creates. It’s difficult to equate the idea with passages such as 2 Cor 5:14 or 1Tim 2:4-6. If Christ did not die for all humanity, then how do we deal with passages such as Jn 12:46 “I have come into the world as a light so that no one who believes in me should stay in darkness”?

8. Arminianism: Christ died for everyone. The Saviour’s atoning death provided the means of salvation for the entire human race. Christ's atonement, however, is effective only for those who believe. I partially agree—Salvation is secured through individual belief in Christ, through faith, with signs following. However, the atoning work of the cross was “once for all.” Because Armenian doctrine applies further conditions around perseverance, their statement here is incomplete, not enough to secure salvation.

Grace

9. Calvinism: While God extends his common grace to all humankind, it is not sufficient to save anyone. Only God's irresistible grace can draw the elect to salvation and “make” a person willing to respond. This grace cannot be obstructed or resisted. I disagree—what is the point of God extending common grace to all humanity if salvation is only for the elect? Salvation is reduced to an exercise in pointless narcissism. However, it is consistent with other Calvinist tenets, where it suggests our lives and will are controlled by God, but the elephant in the room is what on earth was the point in God suggesting we have free will? Irresistible grace cannot be resisted, so we cannot refuse.

10. Arminianism: Through the preparatory (prevenient) grace given to all by the Holy Spirit, man can cooperate with God and respond in faith to salvation. Through prevenient grace, God removed the effects of Adam's sin. Because of "free will", men can resist God's grace. I partially agree—man is free to choose or resist God’s grace. The one concern I have about this doctrine is the subjectivity in the words “prevenient grace” and “removed the effects” to describe what God does with sin. The question being, how closely are these terms linked to perseverance? Does prevenient grace refer to the atoning work of Christ on the cross, or something different? Does “removed the effects” of Adam’s sin mean a literal removal of evidential sin, or the position of spiritual separation? However, the word “prevenient” might suggest a grace that came in Christ, thus removing the punishment of Adam’s sin. I'd like to think it's Christ paying off our penalty for sin that enables God to save, through individual decision and faith. Nevertheless, the penalty for sin remains for all time, it is still death (separation from God). The sin that separates us from God is covered in Christ—God does not see it—it’s not some magical removal as if it ceases to be evident. While Christians become new creations in Christ, the keywords are “in Christ”, which denote the person in whom our sin is covered. Covering is not the deletion of past, present, and future sin, it’s about God’s inability to see it. I’m not convinced by those who teach removal and perfection without the "in Christ", because their lives don’t demonstrate perfection? We don’t become perfect, but God sees us as perfect in Christ, and our unrighteous imperfections allow something to be sanctified from.

Man's Will 

11. Calvinism: All men are depraved, and this depravity extends to the entire person, including the will. Except for God's irresistible grace, men are entirely incapable of responding to God on their own. I disagree—It appears like irresistible grace is like a magic pill that switches on the selected ones! Freedom of the will is fundamental to the purpose God created us, and a given for any loving relationship, including a relationship with God. Without free will, there is no love or relationship, only control and authority. What is the will if not a faculty of the mind that assists us in selecting from an array of good, bad, and indifferent choices in any given decision? This doctrine isolates the will from reason and the soul from the spirit. While humanity is depraved, “the will” doesn’t commandeer authority from reason or a rational mind, unless we permit it to do so. In other words, we make choices. Many of our choices result in bad decisions. Under Calvinist doctrine, the incapability of the will is controlled by God’s irresistible grace and thus prohibits the mind from any decision about salvation. This is a fantasy of ideas. However, Christians come to Christ in many ways, some through supernatural experience, and others through a reasoned decision of the mind, not just the impulses of the soul or the will. The one aspect not mentioned in this doctrine is where the human spirit (knowledge of God) fits in this process.

12. Arminianism: Because prevenient grace is given to all men by the Holy Spirit, and this grace extends to the entire person, all people have free will. I agree—with a caveat on the meaning of “prevenient grace”).

Perseverance

13. Calvinism: Believers (Those born-again) will persevere in salvation because God will see to it that none will be lost. Believers are secure in the faith because God will finish the work he began. I agree—However, Calvinists will attribute this perseverance to God controlling their will to respond, thereby masterminding the salvation narrative, and fulfilling his purpose. We might ponder the one-sided nature of this doctrine, and perhaps grasp the selfish and contradictory nature of a mean God who manipulates his creation to suit his purposes. In reality, genuine love and relationships cannot result from controlling authority figures. We know this to be true in human relationships, and God talks about submission to each other at length, so why would the creator contradict his creation? Why then do I agree with this statement? My underlying presupposition on this is based on the power of God through foreknowledge, justification, and sanctification; in other words, God already knows those he accepts, and his decision to justify them is irrevocable. As this is the third letter in a series discussing the question of losing our salvation, I would refer you to the two previous letters.

14. Arminianism: By the exercise of free will, believers can turn away or fall away from grace and lose their salvation. I disagree—Ironically, this is the only tenet of Armenian doctrine I disagree with, but its influence on all other Armenian tenets produces considerably more contradictions than does any tenet in Calvinist doctrine. The point being made is not that God will reject us, but we can choose to fall away from grace and lose our salvation because of free will. I believe using the word grace in this manner is inflammatory, however, the tenet does state that those who can turn away are already believers, which can only imply they're born-again believers. But clearly, the tenet is stating that this born-again experience can only be secured after demonstrating perseverance, with no rejection of God? So any Christian who says they are saved now must also recognise that at some time in the future they might lose it? Can we disassociate God from this situation? God is responsible for believers being spiritually reborn in the first place, and then he rejects those who fall away? This idea creates a theological conundrum since why would God, in his foreknowledge of all time, justify and seal through spiritual rebirth those he knows will turn away and reject him? It makes no rational sense. If we argue that God allows us to fall away, rather than his rejection, the possibility remains inconsistent with both God's and Jesus’ story of salvation in the first place. A more consistent approach suggests God already knows that those he justifies (saves) will never fall away or reject him, BEFORE he seals them into the Kingdom of God, otherwise there's no power in the sealing. There is a possibility of losing salvation if you think humanity is responsible for the terms of salvation. However, this situation doesn't eventuate because foreknowledge secures those who receive. And let's be clear, we don't know with any certainty who is born-again in the first place, and identifying often difficult situations as examples of falling away is prone to presumption and judgment. If it were that easy, we could root out the weeds ourselves. Matt 13:25-30 typifies those we might use as examples, where the weeds were never “born again” in the first place. They remain invisible, and yet we see them everywhere in the world and every week as valid contributing members of the Church. However, when the wheat is ready to be harvested, the weeds will be left and separated from God. In His foreknowledge, God never knew them, and they never received him, even though, to us, they may appear like any other good person. This is like the seed sown on the rocky ground in Matthew 13:5-6. Those who are truly born-again will never fall away or reject God because both Jesus and God stated very clearly, they would not let this happen (Jn 6:37-40). If Jesus or God are not stating the truth, all the promises are insecure.

For more information about other key points such as Foreknowledge, Predestination, Justification and Sealing, please refer to my two previous commentaries on “Can Christians lose their Salvation”.