Of Calvinism and Arminianism
By
John C. Orlando, Jr.
When people think of Reformed theology, or Calvinism” what they immediately think of is the so-called “Five Points of Calvinism.” Those five points are described in the acronym “TULIP.” Here is a brief description of those points (I will include the Arminian understanding as well in each of the points):
Total Depravity – Sin controls every part of man. The entirety of man’s nature--his mind, body, emotions, and will, is radically corrupted by sin. He is spiritually dead and blind, and unable to obey, believe, repent or incline himself to any spiritual good. God must take the initiative to save man, and give man the ability to choose Christ. Saving faith is not something man contributes to salvation but is itself a part of God's gift of salvation--it is God's gift to the sinner, not the sinner's gift to God. The Arminian position is that man is spiritually sick, and retains the ability to exercise saving faith while still in his unregenerate state. Faith is viewed as the sinner’s gift to God, not God’s gift to the sinner.
Unconditional Election – God, from all eternity, chose to save certain sinners on the basis of His free grace and mercy alone, not on the basis on anything good, either actual or foreseen (such as an act of foreseen faith), on the part of the one chosen. We are saved not on the basis of any merit in us, but on the basis of the mercy and merit of God and Christ alone. A person meets the condition of “choosing” Christ because God first chose him. The Arminian position is that God, from all eternity, chose to save sinners on the basis of a foreseen act of saving faith on the part of the sinner. God chooses the sinner because the sinner first chose Him.
Limited Atonement – Christ’s death on the cross was a substitution whereby He actually paid the penalty for all of the sins of all those He was sent to save. While there is enough merit in Christ’s work on the cross to save every single person who ever has or ever will live, and while His death on the cross did in fact secure certain temporal blessings for every person, His work of atonement was especially designed and intended to save all those whom God had chosen to save from all eternity. Christ’s death secured all things necessary for the salvation of the elect, and rendered the salvation of the elect absolutely certain--all those for whom Christ died in this sense will be saved. The Arminian position is that Christ died in the same sense for all men. By His death on the cross, Jesus did not secure or guarantee the salvation of any single person, but merely made salvation possible for every person.
Irresistible Grace – God’s work of regeneration is a sovereign act whereby He brings to spiritual life those who were spiritually dead. God never fails to accomplish this sovereign work in the hearts of the ones He has chosen from all eternity. The Spirit applies to the elect the benefits of Christ’s atonement by changing their hearts and renewing their wills, supernaturally disarming their hostility toward God by enabling them to freely choose Christ. Jesus is thus the Author of our faith, and salvation is thus by grace alone. The Arminian position is that the sinner is able to resist the saving, regenerating grace of God. The grace of God is helpful and necessary to bring a person to salvation, but it is not effectual in the sense that it can be resisted.
Perseverance of the Saints – All those whom God has chosen from all eternity, and for whom Christ died, and for whom the Holy Spirit regenerates, will endure to the end, being kept by the sovereign power of God Himself. Jesus is thus the Finisher of our faith, and God alone receives all of the glory for our salvation. The Arminian position is that a person who is truly born again can lose his salvation.
While those points are a brief summary on certain aspects of the doctrine of salvation from a Reformed perspective, they by no means encompass the whole of Reformed thought. Be that as it may, what I hope to do for you the reader in this article is to layout some of the issues that are involved in the discussion between Calvinism and Arminianism (or Reformed and non-Reformed), and maybe help shed some light on the Reformed position.
At the heart of the Reformed view is what I will call the Big Two: God’s Sovereignty, and Man’s Depravity. I believe that if a person agrees with the Biblical understanding of those two things, then one would be compelled to accept all of the five points of the Reformed view. That is quite a statement to make, but I believe the reason people reject one or more of the 5 points is because they accept a modified view either of God’s sovereignty, man’s depravity, or both. I believe that a modified view of those things leads us to an unscriptural view of both God and man, and leads to many more theological problems.
Before moving on, it should also be mentioned that both the Calvinistic and the Arminian “systems” are internally consistent. All of the points in each system are interconnected and flow out from one another. Thus, to accept just one point in either system is to accept all of the other points as well. Thus, both Arminianism and Calvinism are internally consistent in their teaching, and only one view can be correct. Many people try to combine certain elements from each, and come away calling themselves “Calminian’s” (part Calvinist, part Arminian). As intriguing as that idea might sound, it is really impossible to be a "Calminian." If a person rejects one point in the Arminian system, but adheres to all of the others, they are simply being inconsistent, and, if a person rejects one point in Calvinism, but tries to hold to one or more of the others, the same is also true. To be a convinced Calminian is to be a Christian that knowingly and willingly lives in contradiction, which is something that both the convinced Calvinist and the convinced Arminian realize.
So what of Calvinism and Arminianism? How did the church get into this discussion in the first place? People most often think of the Protestant Reformation of the 16th Century and the years following as when these issues first flared up. While it is true that in relatively recent history the debate really gained momentum during this time period, it would be a great mistake to think that the debate was peculiar to that time period and the years following. The Reformers and their forerunners based all of their teaching concerning predestination and election, the deadness of man in sin and his total inability to respond to God in a saving sense, and God’s merciful and gracious act of regeneration, on the Scriptures. The next source that they referred to for support of their teachings was the great theologian of the 4th Century, Augustine. Obviously those things predate John Calvin and the other Reformers. This is why many so-called Calvinists do not particularly care for the term “Calvinism.” Calling it “Calvinism” is really a misnomer, because Calvin was not the first to teach the theology that bears his name. Basically, what Calvin did was systemize the teachings of all those who came before him. It is with this in mind that one noted church historian has said that Luther, who actually preceded Calvin by a few years, was a Calvinist. What he means is that though Luther preceded Calvin, he nevertheless taught the very same thing Calvin did, and some would say that he taught those things even more forcefully than Calvin ever dreamed of doing.
While it is true then that the Reformation and the years following it were important with regard to the debate, the debate by no means had its origin there. Notice I mentioned the fact that Augustine preceded the Reformation by 1,000 years. However, it would be a mistake to think that the debate started with Augustine as well. The debate between “Calvinism” and “Arminianism” really goes all the way back to Biblical days! One of the most obvious times where we see a discussion between “Calvinists” and “Arminians” is in John Chapter 6. In this chapter, Jesus teaches that doctrine that is most despised by sinful man: the sovereignty of God in salvation.
Up to John Chapter 6, we see Jesus traveling throughout the countryside, gaining a large following. People are excited! They want to see and hear more from this dynamic “new” prophet who performs impossible acts of healing, feeds thousands of people with just five barley loaves and two fish, and actually walks on water! Now that Jesus has their attention, He goes on to describe who He is: He is the bread of life (John 6:35), and he who comes to Him would never hunger. Oh, what a marvelous truth! Oh, what a glorious thing! Think of it, the Bread from Heaven has come, and anyone who believes in Him would have everlasting life! Jesus then says something that burned the ears of His hearers then, and continues to burn the ears of His hearers today:
“But I said to you that you have seen Me and yet do not believe. All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will by no means cast out.” (John 6:36-37).
Notice, Jesus tells these people that though they have seen Him, they still do not believe, but then goes on to say that all that the Father gives Him will come to Him. This highlights some significant truths. First, contrary to what some people believe, Jesus did teach about predestination, and predestination does have reference to personal salvation. Second, we see that ultimately, the reason why one person comes to Jesus, and another person does not can be traced to the activity of the Father. Those who are not given by the Father to Jesus do not come to Jesus. Those who have been given by the Father to Jesus do come to Him. It's that simple. It should also be noted that those who do not come to Jesus do not do so because of their sinful hearts. Some may object at this point that what the Calvinist has done here is merely pulled one verse out of its context to prove a doctrine. Fair enough. I agree that we must always examine passages in light of their context. So what else does Jesus say in this passage that might help shed light on this? Jesus goes on to say that He hasn’t come down to do His own will, but to do the will of His Father. What is the will of His Father, you ask? Jesus says,
“This is the will of the Father who sent Me, that all He has given Me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up the last day. And this is the will of Him who sent Me, that everyone who sees the Son and believes in Him may have everlasting life; and I will raise him up the last day.” (John 6:39-40)
Some may raise their voice in protest now and say, "Aha! You see, the text says that everyone who believes in Jesus will have everlasting life, therefore Calvinism is false!" Well, it is true that everyone who believes in Christ will have everlasting life, but who is it that believes in Christ? Doesn’t Jesus tell us when He says, “All that the Father gives Me will come to Me…”? You see; it is the giving of the Father that precedes the coming (i.e., saving belief) of the sinner, and the giving of the Father is a completely sovereign work of grace on His part. And notice; every single person that the Father gives to Jesus will, not might, come to Him. Question: Does every single person who ever has or ever will live come to Jesus? Obviously no. But that’s not all…Jesus continues,
“Do not murmur among yourselves. No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up at the last day.” (John 6:44)
Notice, the people were murmuring among themselves. This is frequently, if not always, the result when it is declared that God is indeed sovereign in salvation, and that man is utterly powerless to do anything without the enabling power of God.
Jesus then says, “No one can come to Me…” What a truly incredible statement! Think about what Jesus is saying. He says that no one, i.e., there isn’t a single person on earth, who has the ability to come to Him. What else can coming to Jesus possibly mean other than to embrace Jesus in saving faith? Man is incapable, in and of himself, to submit to Christ in saving faith. This refers to the total inability of natural man to come to Christ. Hence, in just one verse we see the big two that I mentioned earlier: God’s sovereignty and man’s radical depravity.
By now some of those who listened to Jesus may have asked, “How in the world is anyone ever going to be saved if none of us can even act on the command to come to Him?” or worse yet, “How is it that God can be said to be just and fair for commanding us to do something that He knows we do not have the ability to perform?(!)” First of all, God doesn’t owe anyone salvation, rather all He owes any of us is His just condemnation. For some reason we think that God should not only save us, but also every single person who ever has and ever will live. We really harbor the thought within our sinful hearts that there is a moral flaw in the character of God if He does not at least “try” to save every single person. We point our wicked fingers in His face and cry out against Him. The mantra that every vile heart proclaims in light of God’s sovereignty in salvation is “That’s not fair!” What we fail to grasp is that if God were to deal with us according as our sins deserve, none of us would even have a chance of being saved. God choosing to save one person and not another is not unfair. The person who does not go to Heaven does not go because He does not deserve to go; he only deserves to be punished for his many sins—that is just. The person who does go to Heaven also does not deserve to go to Heaven, but God in His mercy chooses to save that person, and the penalty for that person’s sins are paid by someone else (Christ)—that is grace. Justice is fully met. Grace is free. Instead of impugning the character of God by saying He isn’t “fair,” those He has saved should be humbled, and lift up their voices in praise for all that God has done on their behalf. Leave it man though to find a problem even with Divine grace!
As it pertains to God’s justice, the “just” thing for God to do is not to save anyone. Why? Because we’ve all broken His law (and many times over at that!). The only thing we deserve is what justice demands. However, God, in His grace, and solely according to His own purposes, chose to bestow mercy on certain lawbreakers. Thus, some receive mercy, and some receive the punishment their sins deserve, but no one is ever dealt with in an unjust way. The Governor of the Universe reserves the right to grant executive clemency to anyone He so chooses, just as human governors do. When a human governor (say, the Governor of Florida) grants clemency to one criminal and not all criminals, do we say that the human governor isn’t being fair? Of course not, yet with think there is a flaw in God when He exercises the very same rights.
In terms of requiring from us what we are incapable of doing in and of ourselves, God doesn’t adjust His righteous requirements due to our ability or inability to perform them. As the Sovereign King of the universe, He is perfectly within His rights to command anything He wants to, even those things that He knows are impossible for us to perform. However, the thing we forget is that God didn’t command something that we didn’t have the power to perform. We had the power in our first parents, Adam and Eve. When Adam fell, we all fell in Adam. What Adam lost we all lost, and all of Adam’s posterity has inherited a sin nature; we are conceived in iniquity, and born into this world dead in our trespasses and sin, wholly and completely opposed to the spiritual good. Every part of our nature; our body, mind, emotions, and will, have been totally corrupted by the prevailing sin that dwells within us, so much so that the natural man cannot receive the things of the Spirit. He cannot move himself in even the least significant measure to the spiritual good; and the command to turn from our sins and place our trust in Christ is the most significant act of spirituality that one can ever perform. We are conceived as sinners. We are born as sinners. We grow from childhood to adulthood as sinners. We are conceived alienated from God. We are born alienated from God. We grow from childhood to adulthood alienated from God. We sin because we are sinners. Who shall deliver us from this body of death?! The Arminian answers, “My free will decision for Christ.” The Calvinist answers, “Thanks be to God, through Jesus Christ our Lord!”
Given the fact that Jesus said that no one can come to Him, how is it then that one can in fact be saved? Jesus continues, “…unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up at the last day.” There are three things to take note of. First, the word “unless.” Man cannot come to Jesus--man cannot be saved--unless the Father does something. In the book of Ephesians 2:1 – 3, the apostle Paul describes the terrible plight of humanity. He speaks of how we are dead in trespasses and sins, how we who are Christians once walked according to the course of this world and the prince of the power of the air, and we were all children of wrath, just like the rest. What a hopeless situation. Paul though in verse 4 says these words, “But God…” and then proceeds to tell us how marvelously God has acted on our behalf to save us all according to His grace alone. But it is those 2 words "but God" that speak volumes, because they really sum up the difference between Biblical Christianity and every other man-made religion in the world! The answer provided from every man-centered religion to the plight of humanity is “But man…” The answer provided from Biblical Christianity is “But God!”
Thus, when Jesus says “unless the Father…” He is powerfully demolishing every human power and/or work that would seek to exalt itself in the face of God. No one has the ability to come to Jesus…unless the Father! We were dead in our trespasses and sin...but God!
Unless the Father…what? What is it that that the Father does? Jesus says, “unless the Father who sent Me draws him…” The Father must “draw” the individual. This raises an interesting question: what does this drawing mean? Many take this to say that what the Father does is sort of stand there and woo a person. He pleads, He prompts, and He does all He can in trying to get a person to make a decision for Christ, but ultimately the person has the inherent ability to either receive or reject the offer. Therefore, there really isn’t much God can do. Everything hinges on the decision of this fallen creature. The person must cooperate with the wooing of the Father if he or she is to be saved. Is this what is meant by the drawing of the Father though? If we merely looked at the context of all that has been said to this point, we would realize that this kind of interpretation is simply impossible. Remember John 6:37? Jesus said, “All that the Fathers gives Me will come to Me…” As noted earlier, it doesn’t say that they might come, but that they will come. This completely eliminates any possibility that a person who was given to Jesus by the Father could ever not come to Jesus. Thus, when Jesus says “draw” He does not and cannot mean a mere wooing where there is a possibility that the person could effectively resist and reject. The drawing that occurs never fails to ultimately accomplish its purpose. In John 6:65, Jesus restates what He said in verse 44, but in a slightly different way, and I believe it is here that we discover what is meant by “drawing.” In verse 65 of the NIV Jesus says, “…No one can come to Me unless the Father has enabled him…” Notice the word “enabled.” To be enabled to do something means you have been given the power to do something. This is what drawing has to do with. It is a power that is worked in the heart of the sinner that ensures that the unbelieving sinner becomes the believing saint.
These facts alone should be enough to settle what is meant by the word “drawing.” However, we can go even further. W.E. Vine, in his work Vines Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words, with reference to the Greek word used that is translated “draw”, first has it listed under the English word “drag” as a definition, which immediately calls our attention to the fact that we are dealing with more than a mere “wooing” or enticement. The word is “helkuo” (or helko), and Vine explains that it is a less violent word than the Greek word “suro.” He uses the example of John 21:6, 11, where we see a fishing net being “dragged.” Vine also goes on to explain though that the word is used of more vigorous action in other cases, such as the drawing of a sword (John 18:10), and in Acts 16:19 of forcibly dragging (Note: in reference to Acts 16:19, Vine says “forcibly drawing men to or from a place,” in keeping with the KJV. However, “drawing” does not capture the force of what occurred there. Paul and Silas were not “drawn” into the marketplace, they were dragged, which is how the NKJV, ESV, NIV, and NAS all translate the word in that verse). As it relates specifically to John 6:44, Vine states that the word is used to signify “drawing” by "inward power," by "Divine impulse," and quotes Jer 31:3, “with lovingkindness have I drawn thee.” So, what is it that we can conclude about this word? It seems clear that the word has much more force than what people usually attribute to it. Putting all of these ideas together, it seems John 6:44 is saying that there is a power that is exerted by God in the life of the individual that causes that person to savingly come to Him. God does this not in a violent way, but with lovingkindness. In lovingkindness and tenderness He brings His people to Himself. God’s “drawing” in this sense never fails. Those He draws in this way never fail to come to Him, which is made clear by the context of the passage.
Before moving on, the example of John 21:18 mentioned by Vine seems to have some powerful implications to all that’s been said to this point. In John 21:6, Jesus tells the disciples to cast their nets on the right side of the boat and assures them that though they had not caught any fish up to that point, they would find some now. Is this not precisely what our Lord assures us in our “fishing” expeditions for men? It isn’t simply that there are fish and you just haven’t caught any or that you might not catch any; it is that there are fish, and you will catch them! Only an absolutely Sovereign God can make such a promise. The next thing to notice is the multitude of fish that were caught. There were so many that the disciples could not draw the net into the boat. This illustrates for us the fact that God has purposed to save not a mere few, but a vast multitude that no man can count from every nation, tribe and tongue. Finally, we see in verse 11 that the precise number of fish that were caught is given: 153. Why does the Scripture provide the precise number of fish that were caught? The Scripture does not tell us. However, in keeping with the illustration to this point, I don’t think it is a stretch to say then that the number of “fish” (men) that Jesus sends His servants out to catch is a set number as well--every fish (person) that is supposed to be caught will be caught. Much more could be said, such as the strength of the net that did not break, etc., but I will move on and leave the rest to the reader’s sanctified imagination.
To summarize the above then, it is clear that before we came to Christ, we were unable to come to Him, but then God gave us the ability to come to Him, and every single person who is thus enabled by God does in fact come to Jesus. “Drawing” has to do with to with effectual power, what Calvinists like to call Efficacious Grace—it is grace that works. On one side, we see the great "Fisher" of men, casting out His powerful net and drawing into it every single fish that He wants, and the fish that He draws into His net cannot escape. On the other side, we see the empowering of the fish, who are given the eyes to see that the Fisherman is pulling them out of stagnate water where they would surely die, and preparing to place them in living water where they will thrive for all eternity, and upon this realization, the fish then willingly succumb to the Fisherman and His net!
By the way, what was the response of those who had gathered to hear Jesus speak the words that He did in John 6? John 6:66 tells us: “From that time many of His disciples went back and walked with Him no more.” You see; the natural man simply hates to hear of anything that would so exalt God and His sovereignty in salvation, and bring man so low in his depravity. The idea that God chooses one and not another for salvation, and does so according to nothing but the good pleasure and counsel of His will and grace alone, is absolutely repugnant to the natural mind. If I may digress for a moment, those of us who endeavor to proclaim these great truths, regardless of how gently and lovingly we may do so, must realize that people will not be particularly enamored with what we have to say with regard to the sovereignty of God in salvation. Exhibit “A” is what I have touched on earlier: Jesus Himself. I would venture to say that if Jesus had spoken these words in the sense that Arminian's interpret them, none of the people would have left! No one would have been offended. Instead, we see that they all abandoned Him. I am reminded of the great Baptist preacher Charles Haddon Spurgeon, when he made the analysis we are all natural born Arminians. That is to say, we think that we had something to do with choosing God. We think that we had it in our power to receive Christ. We have the same concept of “free will” that all of the humanists do, whereby we think that we are morally neutral, and we make our choices out of thin air. But then we come to the Bible, and learn that we are slaves to sin and to Satan. We learn that we do make free choices, however, the only free choices we are capable of making apart from regeneration are sinful choices. And as we probe further, we learn that man is in fact utterly helpless, and but for the grace of God, none would never come to embrace Christ. Notice though, this is something we must learn. We must learn grace. When we are saved, the overwhelming majority of us are Arminian in our thinking—few of us come into the kingdom thinking Biblically about man, God, and grace--few think like Calvinists. It isn’t until we have had our minds fully submitted to the Scriptures high view of God and low view of man, i.e., God’s absolute sovereignty and man’s radical depravity, that we ever come to embrace what is called Calvinism. It is when we abandon all confidence in man and his power, and place all confidence in God and His power, that we become Calvinists.
I do not mean to convey that Calvinists are the spiritual giants in Christianity—God forbid! And most of my Calvinistic brethren would give a hearty "Amen!" to that. They, as I, would also concede that some Calvinists are the coldest, most irritating creatures on earth and rightfully deserve the label, “the frozen chosen.” Why is this though? A lot of it may have to do with the fact that the study of the doctrines of grace can be intellectually stimulating, as well they should be—the in-depth study of God’s Word is nothing if not intellectually stimulating as well as spiritually exhilarating, and the Bible is food for every part of our being. It is good to be stimulated intellectually, and to bring our minds into subjection to truths of the Bible, and to grow in our knowledge of God and His Word; however, many seem to lose their hearts in the process. Knowledge very often begins to puff up, and there is a real danger of falling into a sort of sterile kind of Christianity where we become solely concerned with the precision of our theology than with the practical application of that theology. We must be passionately concerned with both. Calvinism, rightly understood, should be the place where we marry both head and heart, not the place where we abandon the heart.
Thankfully, there are many Calvinists that do in fact marry both head and heart, and others of us who strive to do the same. These are the true Calvinists. Even then this still doesn’t imply that Calvinists are the spiritual giants of the Christian world, and the true Calvinist would certainly abhor any such classification. The true Calvinist is nothing if not humbled by the revelation of all that God has done on his behalf, and counts himself as nothing but for the grace of God. And as the true Calvinist takes notice of his beloved non-Calvinist brothers and sisters in Christ, his prayer is that they too might come to know the awesome power and majesty of God that is brought to light through the doctrines of grace, that it might lead them to a deeper appreciation for all that God has done on their behalf. All we are praying for in that sense is true revival.
What I’d like to do now is elaborate a bit more on the history of the discussion between Calvinism and Arminianism. Earlier I asked, “How did the church get into this discussion between Calvinism and Arminianism?” Hopefully, all that was touched on above illustrates the fact that this debate between goes back to the Bible itself. After Jesus and the writers of Scripture, the most recognized proponent of this position prior to the Reformation of the 16th Century was the 4th Century theologian Augustine, who I referred to earlier. The Reformers, in making their case, went first and foremost from Scripture, and then would reference primarily Augustine to support their theses. We do this today when we deal with various passages of Scripture, and then turn to a trusted commentary on a particular passage of Scripture to help shed more light on what it is we are trying to discern. This is the same sense in which the Reformers referenced Augustine. Keep in mind the Reformers and their followers did not come up with something new. The position that Calvin systematically put forward was the position held by every one of the key Reformers and their forerunners (i.e., John Wycliffe and John Hus), as well as Augustine 1,000 years before them, and the Apostles, Jesus, and the Old Testament before that. Here is a brief sketch then, of the key people with reference to the Reformation position, and when they taught:
1. The Law, the Psalms, and the Prophets: 1600 BC – 400 BC
2. Jesus: 30 – 33 AD
3. The Apostles and other writers of Scripture: 37 AD – 95 AD
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Augustine: 383 – 430 AD
5. Martin Luther: 1517 – 1546 AD
6. Ulrich Zwingli: 1521 – 1534 AD
7. John Calvin: 1534 – 1564 AD
As you can see, Calvin is last on the list in terms of historical chronology, and of course, all segments of the Scripture are cited prior to that. Notice the line I have that divides the Scripture and the primary teachers outside of Scripture that teach the Reformation view. I do this to call attention to the fact that the other teachers below that line are secondary to the teaching of Scriptures in terms of chronology and importance. The teachings of the others only serve to help us better understand what the Scriptures teach, and they should be followed only in so far as their teachings are compatible with Scripture. It cannot be overstated that the teaching of the rest is founded upon the teaching of the Scripture. They themselves were relentless in their concern to base everything on the teaching of Scripture alone, and taught, among other things, that the only infallible source and rule for faith and practice is Sacred Scripture.
I’ve often remarked to people in Bible studies that I have conducted that if one would have asked John Calvin himself about the five points of Calvinism, he would have looked at you with a blank stare. That’s because those five points were not articulated in that sense until years after his death. In the years after the Reformation, a movement began that was initiated by a group of followers of a theologian by the name of Jacobus Arminius. Arminius, who himself was a minister in the Reformed Church, began to question some of the teachings of strict Calvinism. After Arminius died, his followers put forward his teachings, and challenged the Reformed Church in the Netherlands. They advanced five articles, known as the Articles of Remonstrance. The Synod of Dordt was convened to examine and respond to the articles. After extensive deliberation, the Synod responded to the five articles of the Remonstrance with five articles of their own, which have become know to us as the “Five Points of Calvinism.” The verdict that came forth was that Arminianism was found to be a divergence from the Gospel itself and considered to be heretical. This is important because so often many people think that the Calvinists were the first ones to come up with their 5-points seemingly out of thin air, and when people think of Calvinism today, the tendency is to think of it as some kind of extreme aberration that appeared in Church history. Nothing could be further from the truth. The aberration that appeared within Protestantism was Arminianism, not Calvinism, yet today the church has been flooded so much with the aberration that we now call what was true, false, and what was false, true. So pervasive is the error today that renowned theologian J.I. Packer, in co-writing an introduction to Martin Luther’s classic Bondage of the Will, commented,
“Much modern Protestantism would be neither owned nor even recognized by the pioneer Reformers. The Bondage of the Will (written by Luther) fairly sets before us what they believed about the salvation of lost mankind. In light of it, we are forced to ask whether Protestant Christendom has not tragically sold its birthright between Luther's day and our own.”
Packer continues,
"Whoever puts this book (The Bondage of The Will) down without having realized that evangelical theology stands or falls with the doctrine of the bondage of the will has read it in vain. The doctrine of free justification by faith only, which became the storm-centre of so much controversy during the Reformation period, is often regarded as the heart of the Reformers' theology, but this is hardly accurate. The truth is that their thinking was really centered upon the contention ... that the sinner's entire salvation is by free and sovereign grace only. ... Is our salvation wholly of God, or does it ultimately depend on something that we do for ourselves? Those who say the latter (as the Arminians later did) thereby deny man's utter helplessness in sin, and affirm that a form of semi-Pelagianism is true after all. It is no wonder, then, that later Reformed theology condemned Arminianism as being in principle a return to Rome ... and a betrayal of the Reformation. ... Arminianism was, indeed, in Reformed eyes a renunciation of New Testament Christianity in favour of New Testament Judaism; for to rely on oneself for faith is no different in principle from relying on oneself for works, and the one is as un-Christian and anti-Christian as the other." (emphasis mine).
Powerful words indeed, and they call attention to the fact that the church today finds itself as it did in the years that preceded the Protestant Reformation of the 16th Century: greatly weakened and in trouble because it insists upon making man the measure of all things instead of God. In light of this, it seems a foregone conclusion that what is needed is a modern Reformation, where we turn back to those God-centered principles that once made the church so formidable a bulwark and culture changing force. Those principles are not something new, but something old; they go all the way back to the Bible. The discussion between Calvinism and Arminianism is not one of theological nitpicking, but cuts at the very heart of what the Gospel is all about. When one begins to examine carefully what each view teaches, it becomes very clear, very quickly, that the differences are profound indeed, and to label it a mere “in-house” debate does not do justice to the importance of the issues under discussion. This is never more apparent than when we look at probably the most controversial of the points that divide Calvinists and Arminians: what precisely happened on the cross at Calvary over 2,000 years ago. One key factor that is often overlooked in this aspect of the discussion is that if one embraces Arminianism, they cannot (at least logically) hold to the substitutionary view of the atonement. That is a Reformed concept that is inconsistent with the Arminian view. Dr. James White, in his book The Potters Freedom, (which I highly commend), elaborates on this fact in great detail. Dr. White quotes Arminian scholar J. Kennet Grider:
“A spillover from Calvinism into Arminianism has occurred in recent decades. Thus, many Arminians whose theology is not very precise say that Christ paid the penalty for our sins...Arminians teach that what Christ did He did for every person, therefore what He did could not have been to pay the penalty, since no one would then ever go into eternal perdition...His death is such that all will see that forgiveness is costly and will strive to cease from anarchy in the world God governs. This view is called the governmental theory of the atonement.”
Dr. White then makes this comment:
“It is very difficult to understand upon what basis the Father could forgive those who “repent and believe,” especially since there is no substitution and hence no payment of the penalty for sin.”
Thus, we see that the discussion between Calvinism and Arminianism, though it has been labeled an “in-house” discussion, is the most significant and important of all in-house discussions. These are not merely side issues that can be glossed over or ignored. The issues deal with the most fundamental aspects of the Christian faith and message.
The atonement, to the Calvinist, actually accomplished something. Christ came and lived a life of perfect obedience, and then went to the cross in the place of His people. He became our substitute. Whose substitute? Jesus tells us plainly, “I lay down my life for the sheep.” (John 10:15). I remember being involved recently in a discussion with a non-Calvinist pastor on the topic of the atonement. I asked him a simple question, “So, do you mean to say that Christ died for the sheep and the goats?” His answer was, “absolutely!” He then began to level his concerns that Calvinists impose their theology on to certain texts in order to preserve their teaching on the atonement. Rather strange isn’t it? He charges the Calvinists with imposing their theology onto texts in order to make them fit their theology, while this non-Calvinist pastor had done precisely the thing that he accuses Calvinists of! Look at the words of Jesus again. Jesus does not say, “I lay down My life for the sheep and the goats…” No! There is a period after the word sheep. Let us also look at the context of the passage. Jesus is addressing a crowd of Jews and Pharisees (cf John 9:41; 10:19, 24) who did not believe His words. In the course of the discussion, He tells them that He is the Good Shepherd, and that the Good Shepherd gives His life for the sheep (John 10:11). Jesus says that He knows His sheep, and is known by His own (John 10:14). And then in speaking to the unbelieving Jews He says,
“But you do not believe, because you are not of My sheep, as I said to you. My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me. And I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish (John 10:26-27).”
It should be manifestly clear that the context of John 10, at the very least, teaches:
1. Jesus alone is the Good Shepherd.
2. Jesus, the Good Shepherd, gives His life for the sheep, and not for the goats.
3. Jesus knows all those who are His sheep, but does not know the goats (cf Matt 7:23).
4. All who are Jesus’ sheep know Him. All who are not Jesus’ sheep do not know Him.
5. Not every single person is counted as one of His sheep.
6. The reason those who are not Jesus’ sheep do not hear Jesus’ voice is precisely because they are not Jesus’ sheep. Hearing is dependent upon the prerequisite of being one of Jesus’ sheep. One is not made a sheep because he hears, but hears because he is a sheep.
7. Jesus gives His sheep eternal life, and they shall never perish. This is only made possible and actual by Jesus laying down His life for His sheep. He does not do this for the goats. All those for whom Jesus lays down His life, i.e., His sheep, are given eternal. Those whom Jesus has laid down His life are called “sheep.”
When one compares John 10 with John 6, we see an even fuller picture of the design and purpose of God in salvation. The sheep spoken of in John 10 are the same group that Jesus spoke of in John 6:37 when He said, “All that the Father gives Me will come to Me…” The “all” of John 6 is the “sheep” of John 10, and the “coming” and “raising up” of John 6 are predicated upon Jesus’ “laying down His life” in John 10. All of these passages teach nothing if they do not teach the absolute sovereignty of God in salvation, the radical depravity of man, and the particularity of the atonement. The saving benefits of the death of Christ are limited to a particular group, the sheep, and this was by the sovereign intention and design of God. Christ bore the full penalty for all of the sins of all of His people. He died as their substitute.
This is why the Arminian scholar above has a problem with the substitutionary atonement. If it is true that Christ bore the penalty for all my sins, that God’s anger for my sin has really been assuaged, that my sins really were removed by Christ, then how could God possibly punish me for the same sins that He punished Christ for? A person might object, “Because they didn’t believe.” But isn’t unbelief a sin? If Christ died for that sin, how can God punish me for it if Christ already was punished for it? The only escape from the truth of the atonement as understood by Calvinism is to either deny the substitutionary nature of the atonement and embrace some other theory (such as the one the Arminian scholar above embraced), or to say that Christ died for every sin except the sin of unbelief, in which case you have an incomplete atonement, and we must then ask, “Who then paid the penalty for the sin of unbelief?!” Now, it is quite true that we must meet the condition of belief in order to be saved. A person does not experience salvation apart from saving faith. The difference is that the Calvinist maintains that saving faith itself is not something that any of us is capable of exercising in and of ourselves, and it is one of the benefits secured for us on the cross at Calvary. Christ, by His death on the cross, secured for us all things related to our salvation, and the Holy Spirit infallibly applies to us all of the benefits secured by Christ on our behalf. Thus, even our faith is a gift given to us by a gracious God. What the Calvinist maintains is that the work of Christ on the cross is a perfect work. It perfectly accomplished all that it was intended to accomplish.
One objection raised by some at this point is that this would mean that all men are not given an equal chance or opportunity to be saved. It is common in Christian circles today to hear, “God gives every single person an opportunity to be saved.” What people mean by that statement is that it is a real possibility in the mind of the all-knowing God that every single person can possibly be saved. Much can be said in regard to this, however, we could sum it all up by saying that the opportunity for salvation has appeared to all people, but only the people who, from all eternity are chosen and empowered by God can and will act on the opportunity. The number of those who have been chosen for salvation from all eternity is set (by the way, even the Arminian would agree with that; the difference is over the basis that one is chosen—is one chosen on the basis of an act of foreseen faith, or on the basis of God’s unspeakable grace and the kind intention of His will alone). The set number of chosen ones is commonly referred to in Scripture as the elect. Those who are among the elect will be empowered to respond to the opportunity, and they necessarily will respond to it at the prescribed time that God has determined. One cannot overlook the fact that if a person admits that God is all-knowing, and that He already knows who will and who will not be saved, it is impossible to maintain that every single person has a real possibility to be saved from the perspective of God and His omniscience. The truth of the matter, and it can be a hard truth to deal with, is that eternal destiny’s are set. Now, just because all of this is true doesn’t mean that the opportunity for every one to be saved hasn’t appeared to all men. Of course it has. And from our human perspective, every single person on the face of the planet is to be given the opportunity to respond to the Gospel. From our finite, human perspective, there is the possibility that every single person we encounter with the Gospel can be saved. The reason is because we do not know who the “elect” are—they’re not walking around with big neon signs that read “I’m one of the elect, so preach to me!” Our task is to preach the Gospel to every creature, to present every creature with the opportunity to be saved, and let God worry about the electing and the saving. But again, from God’s perspective, He already knows who will and will not be saved. From His all-knowing perspective, only those whom He has chosen from all eternity will be saved. The opportunity has appeared to the elect and the non-elect. But only the elect will take advantage of the opportunity. The non-elect will reject the opportunity. All of this is predestined according to the council of God’s perfect plan and good will alone. If one disagrees with all of this, then the only other options is to say:
1. That the possibility still exists in the mind of God for every single person, even those He infallibly knows are not elect, to be saved.
2. That the possibility still exists for every single person to be saved because God does not have exhaustive knowledge of the future, or of who will or will not be saved.
To believe either one those views would be to believe in a god other than the God that is revealed to us in the Bible. The first one is inherently contradictory. How can there be the possibility for every single person to be saved in the mind of God when he already knows infallibly that not every single person will be saved? Is God confused? Is He schizophrenic? As the Apostle Paul might say at this point, “God forbid!” The second view is even more problematic, and ironically, it is a view that many are beginning to embrace within the Evangelical community. It is maintained that God does not know the future exhaustively, but has left much of it open. As Pastor Douglas Wilson has remarked, removing God’s omniscience only makes Him a “reckless maniac.” The God of the Bible is far different than either of those views. He is absolutely sovereign, perfect, omnipotent, and omniscient. For Him to be anything less would be for Him to be less than God. God is in control, and God has a plan that cannot be thwarted. From the Divine perspective, salvation isn’t about chances, possibilities, or opportunities, but about Divine sovereignty, certainty, and perfect accomplishment. From the finite, human perspective, every person who calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved, and our responsibility is to proclaim that message to every person on the face of the planet.
All that I have stated to this point simply affirms the Bibles declaration that salvation is of the Lord, and of Him alone. To put it another way, Jesus doesn’t have any co-saviors. What the non-Calvinist view does in essence is posits two active powers that work simultaneously that result in the saving of a person. Theologically, this is called synergism, as opposed to the Calvinistic and Biblical notion of monergism, which posits only one active power (God) that results in the saving of a person. For the synergist, one power is the grace of God, and the other power is the “free will” of the sinner. If the sinner doesn’t “cooperate” with God, then he won’t be saved. If he does cooperate, he will be saved. We see here that the key word is “cooperate,” and in light of this I will refer to this concept as the Cooperative View of salvation instead of the traditional term of synergism.
Many problems abound in that view, not the least of which is the problem that it contradicts the principle that there is only one Savior, and that Savior doesn’t need any help to accomplish the task of saving (how does one “help” omnipotence?!) If man is saved due to his cooperation with God, then salvation is a joint venture, and it is no longer by grace alone. Man is a co-laborer in the process of salvation. Man’s flesh in this view, contrary to the Bible’s statement that the flesh profits nothing (John 6:63), now profit’s everything. An individual also has grounds upon which to boast. He can say, “You see, I’m saved because I cooperated with God. I’m saved because I acted on the opportunity. I’m saved because I accepted the gift. I’m saved because I…” This highlights one of the most significant differences between the Reformed and non-Reformed views. Where the non-Reformed view is “I’m saved because I…” the Reformed view is “I’m saved because God…” For the non-Reformed person who wants to believe that he is saved because he cooperated with God, a simple question must be asked: why did you cooperate with God, and someone else didn’t? Is it because you are smarter than the person who didn’t? Is it because you are more righteous? What was it about you that made you cooperate with God? As you can see, denying the sovereignty of God in salvation is a slippery slope indeed.
Another problem with what I have termed the cooperative view of salvation is that it also denies the clear teaching in the Bible that man cannot respond in a saving sense to the things of God because of the prevailing depravity and corruption of his nature. According to Scripture, man is spiritually dead (Eph 2:1). To be spiritually dead means that man has lost the ability in and of himself to respond spiritually to God (1 Cor 2:14). Physically, dead men don’t do anything related to life. Spiritually, the same is true. In order for a physically dead person to do something related to living, he must first be raised to life. Spiritually, the same is true. A spiritually dead sinner must be brought to spiritual life before he can savingly embrace the Savior. God must raise him from spiritual death, so that he will be able to respond to God spiritually (Eph 2:1 – 9). God must breathe spiritual life into the spiritually dead person. The idea that man has the ability to cooperate with God in a spiritual sense to bring about his salvation is totally foreign to Scriptures, yet it is the prevailing view that is taught in the majority of so-called Evangelical pulpits today.
The Bible is manifestly clear that man is powerless in and of himself to respond to the command to repent; so powerless in fact that he doesn’t even seek God in a saving sense (Romans 3:10 – 18; Romans 8:6 – 8; 1 Cor 2:14). I do not think it is an exaggeration to say that unless Calvinism is true, salvation itself would be impossible. God must do the saving from beginning to end, because man is unable to save himself. For God to do the saving, He must do the electing on the basis of His grace alone, because God could not have chosen a single individual on the basis of a foreseen act of faith, because a foreseen act of saving faith on the part of a fallen sinner is an impossibility outside of God’s gracious act of regeneration. Nothing is left to chance with God. He has a perfect plan to perfectly save imperfect sinners, and all to His glory alone.
I am reminded of a statement made by the famous scientist Albert Einstein who said, “God doesn’t play dice with the universe.” Einstein was referring to the incredible (and, I might add, irreducible) complexity and order that he saw, and the fact that even being able to do science was dependent upon there being such order. To piggyback on what Einstein said, I would say the same about God as concerning every aspect of His plan of redemption. God doesn’t play dice with it. God has intricately designed His plan of redemption so that it cannot fail. It is not left to the whims of sinful creatures. In the non-Reformed/Arminian view, God is reduced to a cosmic crapshooter, who rolls the dice so to speak, hoping that the dice will turn up the way He’d like them to. In the non-Reformed view, God’s plan of redemption is one that not only can fail, but does fail…over and over and over again; but the Bible paints a completely different picture. Christ is the Lamb of God slain from before the foundation of the earth. Think about that. Before God even created the earth, in His minds eye the Lamb had been offered up. Offered up for what, though? For those He foreknew (that it is, those He chose to know in a loving relationship—His sheep). Thus, creation and history itself is nothing more than the outworking of God’s sovereign plan of redemption that He initiated before time even began—a plan that makes Christ an actual Savior instead of merely a potential Savior; a plan that makes God the perfect Architect of a perfect plan that will come about precisely as He has determined; a plan that ascribes all of the glory to God, and to Him alone; a plan that makes Christ the only savior, not a co-savior.
To put all of this into perspective, maybe we should just ask, “Why does any person ever “choose” Christ?” The bottom line is that the only reason I chose Christ is because Christ first chose me. This is really all that the Bible and the Calvinist is saying. The opposite view says that Christ chose me because I first chose Him. This means that Christ must now share the glory for my salvation with me, and reduces Him to nothing more than an impotent bystander in the drama of redemption. It’s as if Christ were nervously pacing the halls of Heaven, hoping that someone might want to be His friend, and “accept” His offer--and you can understand why He would be so worried; after all, He went through all the trouble to become a man, live a life of perfect obedience to the Law of God, then was tortured and hung on a cross, and all of that could be for nothing unless we did Him the honor of choosing Him! What a deficient view of Christ and His salvation that is. In that view, Christ is the one who is indebted to us, because if we don’t “accept” His offer, then He died in vain! Could anything be more dishonoring to God?! The whole point of the Gospel is that we are indebted to Christ, and His death was not, and could not be in vain, because His perfect plan of redemption is not contingent on the fickle choices of men made in the feebleness of their flesh, but on the omnipotent power of His sovereign will. This is why the great Baptist preacher Charles Haddon Spurgeon stated that Calvinism is the Gospel. When you really understand all of the implications, you can see why. Christ is a perfect Savior, and people were really and actually saved at the cross. Every single person whom God has chosen to save will be saved without fail. Every single person for whom Christ died will be saved without fail. Every single person for whom the Holy Spirit applies the benefits of the atonement and brings to spiritual life will be saved without fail. He not only chooses, but He secures, empowers, and ensures the salvation of His sheep.
To say that every single person for whom Christ died will certainly be saved may sound like a completely novel idea to many Christians today. However, the Bible is clear that all that the Father gives to Jesus will come to Him, and He will raise them up the last day! All of His sheep will be given eternal life. All of His people will be saved from their sins! Notice the word “all” that I have used. Many object to the Reformed view by saying that Christ died for all, meaning every single person who ever has or ever will live. When one tries to point out that we must determine what the word “all” is referring to, they chant the mantra, “all means all!” We are well aware of what the word “all” means; what we are trying to determine is what the word all is referring to. To claim that the word “all” has only one usage, and refers to only one thing in every instance is to completely abuse the English language, and cause the Bible to contradict itself. In one place the Bible says that Christ died for many, and for His sheep and for the sins of His people (i.e., not for the sins of every single person who ever has or will live). In other places, it states that Christ died for “all” and for the “world.” If the words “all” and “world” refer to every single person who ever has or will live each time they are used, then I submit that the Bible is hopelessly contradictory. The law of non-contradiction states that “A” cannot be “Non A” at the same time and in the same relationship. For example, a thing cannot both exist, and not exist, at the same time and in the same relationship. George Bush cannot both be, and not be, the President of the United States at the same time and in the same respect. A chair cannot have and not have 4 legs at the same time and in the same respect. Obviously, many more examples could be given. In the case of the word “all,” if we held to the view that “all” is always used the same way and always refers to the same thing, then the Bible would violate law of non-contradiction, because it would be saying that “A” (His sheep, i.e., not every single person) is “Non-A” (every single person who ever has or will live) with reference to the same event (the atonement).
The only way to escape this conclusion is to interpret the words “all” and “world” in their context, and in light of the words “many” and “His sheep/His Church/His friends. In terms of context, the words “all” and “world” are often given a particular context. To put it another way, we are usually able to determine who or what is being spoken of by the words “all” and “world” by examining closely the context of the passage(s) those words are found in. So, when you see that word “all,” the natural question we ask is “all of what?” What you will discover is that in its context, “all” does not and cannot refer to every single person who ever has or ever will live in many cases, and the same holds true with the word “world.”
As a matter of fact, the Bible itself gives us some help in trying to determine
how those words are to be understood in relation to God’s redemptive plan. In
Rev 5:9 we read, “…because you were slain, and with your blood you
purchased men for God from every tribe and language and people and nation…”
Why doesn’t the text say that Christ purchased every single person
who ever has or will live? The
matter seems clear: because every single person who ever has or will live was
not purchased. And when John
speaks of the world in other places, it is now clear that he means that the
Gospel has worldwide implications—God is no longer dealing with a
particular nation (Israel), but with all types of people without distinction.
Remember the surprise of the apostles after Pentecost when they realized
that the Gentiles were being swept into the Kingdom? The amazing thing to them
was that the middle of separation had been broken down so that the Gentiles now
had access to the God of Israel. Thus,
when we then interpret “all” and “world” in light of the words
“many” and “His sheep,” as it relates to the topic of the design and
intent of the atonement, it becomes clear that “all” refers to
every single person who has lived or will live who is marked as one of
Christ’s sheep. The word “world”
then refers to the fact that God’s sheep are comprised of people from
every corner of the globe (the whole world, not just Israel).
One final matter of discussion between Calvinists and Arminians has to do with whether or not a truly born again believer can lose his salvation. All consistent Arminians would answer yes, a truly born again person can lose his salvation. The Calvinist answers no; a truly born again person cannot lose his salvation. Calvinists hold to the doctrine of the Perseverance of the Saints, or as we like to call it, The Preservation of the Saints (calling attention to the keeping power of God, who does for us what we could never do for ourselves). There are those who refer to this as “once saved, always saved.” I remember one time getting into a discussion with a brother who believed that a Christian could lose his salvation. He said, “John, if I could find one verse that said, “once saved, always saved” I might believe it.”
At the time, I just nodded my head, and thought to myself that it would indeed be nice to find such a verse. It wasn’t until later as I was reading in the Gospel of John that I found the verse! Now, it doesn’t say it quite in those exact words, but it certainly does teach it. In John 10:28, Jesus says, “And I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish…” Jesus of course is speaking about His sheep. Notice, He gives them eternal life (once saved), and they shall never perish (always saved). There you have it! Now, I know that really over simplifies the discussion, and there are many passages that must be dealt with, but I think that verse is pretty powerful. And I would also caution against the phrase “once saved, always saved.” I, as well as most Calvinists I know, do not prefer it, because it can convey a sense of easy-believe-ism. It can give the impression to some that since they’re saved, and there’s no possibility for them to ever not be saved, then that means that they can kick back and live like the Devil. Of course, that attitude is a severe distortion, but it demonstrates why Calvinists use terminology such as “Perseverance of the Saints.” This phrase calls attention to the fact that believers are indeed called to endure to the end. It isn’t simply a matter of praying a sinner’s prayer, signing a card, getting baptized, and that’s it. The Devil himself could do all of that! What we must determine is the reality of the experience. When I prayed the prayer, signed the card, and got baptized, was there in fact an inward reality that reflected the outward performance of those things? Believers are to examine themselves to see if they are in the faith. Believers are called to produce good works in keeping with repentance. Believers are called to make their calling and election sure. Perseverance of the Saints teaches all of these things, and adds that a person who has been chosen by God from all eternity, for whom Christ died, and for whom the Spirit regenerated, is saved and will endure to the end. The truly born again person is the one who will produce good works in keeping with repentance, because that’s what truly saved people necessarily do. Salvation is of the Lord from start to finish. Christ is the Author and the Finisher of my faith. What Christ begins, He always succeeds in finishing. There are many who profess to be Christians, but only those who are truly born again will endure to the end. Those who fall away only display the fact that they were never truly born again to begin with. Many passages could be examined, but I will only make a few points that will hopefully shed light on the discussion:
1. A born again believer can never become an unborn again unbeliever.
2. God is the One who preserves and keeps His people; He does for us what we could never do for ourselves.
3. What is a Christian? A Disciple – A follower of Christ.
4. What is the mark of true disciples – They abide indeed. (John 8:31)
5. What is the mark of false disciples – they do not abide (1 John 2:19)
6. Sheep and Goats (Matt 25:32-34; Acts 20:28; Eph 1:14; 1 Pet 2:9)
A. The Sheep – God’s own special possession purchased with His own blood.
B. The Goats – Profess to be sheep, but are frauds.
C. Christ has set His love on His sheep from and for all eternity. He gives eternal life to His sheep, and His sheep shall never perish. Once they’ve been given eternal life, they can never lose eternal life, because God is greater than all, and God never fails.
7. Christ is the Author and Finisher of our faith (Heb 12:2)
8. God’s sovereign will - All God has determined to save will be saved (John 6:37-40).
9. God’s sovereign power - He raises His people from spiritual deadness to spiritual life, and He preserves His people by His sovereign power; to Him alone be all of the glory.
In conclusion of this point, I think we need to examine the consequences of our ideas. What are we saying when we say that a person can lose their salvation? It would seem to me that to claim that Jesus could lose one of His sheep is to say that Jesus isn’t a very good Shepherd. It is to undermine the power of Christ’s work on the cross. It is to rob Christ of all of the glory for our salvation. It is to say that He is less powerful than the sheep that somehow wiggle their way out of His sovereign, omnipotent grasp—clearly a contradiction in terms—sovereignty and omnipotence can never fail. Not only does this summarize this final difference between Calvinism and Arminianism; I think it also summarizes the entire discussion. Calvinism is relentlessly God-centered. The emphasis for the Calvinist is on the glory and power of God. Both God and man are given their rightful place in our thinking.
So, what of Calvinism and Arminianism? Suffice it to say that I really only skimmed the surface. I didn’t deal in an in-depth manner with all of the points that separate the two views, nor was it my intention to do so. My goal here was to touch on the differences and try to provide a little more light into the things that separate the views; the heart of which has to do with what I call the Big Two: God’s absolute sovereignty and mans radical depravity. In closing, I’d like to make two points. First, Calvinists must ensure that they present the truths of the Doctrines of Grace in a spirit of genuine humility and love. That is not to say that we cannot be passionate, or make some strong statements. However, we must always be careful to present the truth in love, and bear patiently with those who may disagree. I hope I have succeeded in that, and if not, please just send me an e-mail to inform me how I can better achieve that goal. We must remember that the sovereignty of God in salvation can be a very difficult concept and truth at first, and there will be many fine Christians who will never come to the place of embracing what the Calvinist has to say. This leads me to my second point: we must never lose sight of the fact that the Calvinist and the Arminian, if they are born again, are brothers and sisters in Christ. Far too often the discussion results in each side getting to the point of actually calling into question the salvation of the other. The issues that divide us are important, and they have a significant impact on our understanding of God and His Gospel, but the Person that unites us is greater than all. Soli Deo Gloria.