Introduction
If you’ve been following Jesus and made it your aim to understand the Bible, there’s every chance you’ve run into the Calvinism vs Arminianism debate. The hope for this article is that it will bring unity among God’s people by understanding this issue more adequately so that the enemy doesn’t continue to divide us by provoking the arrogance in well-meaning people who are strangers to the wisdom necessary to handle God’s word in a mature and sensible way.
To begin with, some context. John Calvin was a French theologian born in 1509. He was instrumental in exposing the false doctrines of Roman Catholicism, particularly through his Institutes of the Christian Religion that he wrote to serve as a guide to expose heresy. In his mind, sound doctrine was the best way to expose heresy, because how else can we identify what is crooked unless we have something straight to compare it with? And the foundation of his theology was a commitment to the Bible as the all-sufficient source of true theology.
Although it is sometimes assumed that doctrines like Predestination / Election are unique to Calvin, it’s very important to note that the French theologian was not alone in upholding these doctrines, and he spoke at length about them because they are frequently mentioned throughout the Bible, especially in the pages of the New Testament.[i]
Calvin spent a considerable amount of time upholding the doctrine of God’s Sovereignty in our salvation because Human Responsibility is key to the guilt-driven doctrine of salvation promoted by Roman Catholicism that Calvin was protesting against. What most people don’t know is that Calvin was a very balanced theologian who also upheld Human Responsibility, but sadly, for most people who engage in the Calvinism vs Arminianism debate, they only know of Calvin’s stance on God’s Sovereignty making him seem radical, unbalanced and unbiblical. I’ll explain why this is the case below.
Calvin was married to Idelette until her death in 1549, and remained single until his death in 1564.
As for Jacob Arminius, he was also a pastor and professor of theology who is best known for upholding the doctrine of Human Responsibility, and in particular, human free will. Although he deviated in these beliefs from the Reformed tradition he was trained in, he remained within the Protestant tradition. Although some who call themselves ‘Calvinists’ can wrongly characterise Arminius as a heretic, he was a serious theologian, born in the Netherlands in 1560, and died in 1609. He never met John Calvin because the French theologian died when he was 4, but Calvin’s theology shaped Arminius in a big way, and although the two theologians were united in their commitment to God’s word as the all-sufficient foundation of truth and doctrine, as well as their refutation of Roman Catholic teaching, Arminius’ legacy is not found in his refutation of Catholicism, but his refutation of certain doctrines that Calvin taught.
Before we get into the theology of what is mistakenly referred to as ‘Calvinism’ and ‘Arminianism’, it’s worth pointing out that the antagonism that often surrounds this debate was not in the mind of Arminius himself. Although he disagreed with Calvin on certain points, he was thankful for him. According to Professor of Historical Theology, Carl Bangs (1922–2002), Arminius said of Calvin,
“After the reading of Scripture, which I strenuously inculcate [teach], and more than any other […] I recommend that the Commentaries of Calvin be read. […] For I affirm that in the interpretation of the Scriptures Calvin is incomparable, and that his Commentaries are more to be valued than anything that is handed down to us in the Bibliotheca [writings] of the Fathers.”
I include this for those who are convinced of Arminius’ critique of Calvin’s teachings so that they don’t fall into the error of demonising Calvin, even as you disagree with him. I pray you’ll follow Arminius in this, and learn how to disagree with grace, recognising that even Calvin and Arminius were partners in leading God’s people to faith alone, in Christ alone, by God’s grace alone, under the final authority of the scriptures alone, to the glory of God alone.
At the same time, it’s good for convicted ‘Calvinists’ to recognise what they have in common with Arminius so that even if you disagree with his critiques of Calvin’s theology, no one demonises him either. As we’ll see below, it’s the followers of both Calvin and Arminius who perpetuate the divide, in the way their teachings are summarised and promoted by narrow-minded people.
I say this because Calvin died in 1546 and Arminius in 1609, and it was the followers of Arminius who wrote a document in 1610 called the Remonstrate (English Definition: to complain) that articulated a critique of some of Calvin’s doctrine. This document was called The Five Articles of Remonstrance, later referred to as The Five Points of Arminianism. These points came out of Arminius’ teaching and were articulated by his followers in an appeal to the State of Holland for tolerance for their convictions. It was signed by 40 theologians.
About 80 theologians came together for the Synod of Dort in 1618–19 to respond to The Five Points of Arminianism by setting forth The Canons of Dort, later summarised and promoted as The Five Points of Calvinism. I say ‘summarised’ because The Canons of Dort included 59 articles and 34 denials, far too much to be adequately summarised in five brief points!
Before we briefly explain the basis for the convictions behind each of the ‘five points’, it’s worth noting that any conversation regarding a person’s thoughts or beliefs that is done after the person has died has so much potential for division because the person is no longer around to answer to the objections. In the case of the Arminian vs Calvinist debate, the five points may be a neat summary of a few narrow sections of their teaching, but both are terribly inadequate as a summary of their theology. Sadly, people who have never made the effort to study the context or theology of Arminius and Calvin are usually the ones butting heads, perpetuating the divine without realising that what they’re debating is not a fair reflection of what these men taught, but a truncated summary of debate over a few niche doctrines that were put together as an appeal for religious toleration after both men had gone to be with the Lord.
If we had the wisdom and patience to study the works of these theologians properly we could all learn so much, but as it is, far too often people take hold of a few ideas and condemn what they do not understand, and in so doing, they divide the body of Christ.
As we prepare to look at a summary of the five points from each ‘side’, here are five points of our own to note;
1. The Five Points of Arminianism are a truncated summary of a narrow set of Arminius’ teachings that his followers were appealing for toleration to believe and teach in the Netherlands in 1610, in light of a narrow set of doctrines found in Calvin’s writings that were commonly taught in Dutch Reformed churches at the time.
2. The Five Points of Calvinism are often summarised by the acronym TULIP that has become the sum total of Calvin’s theology for those who don’t have the intellect, will, integrity or patience to study what the French theologian actually taught. If Calvin himself were to hear about his work being reduced to these five categories, he would turn over in his grave! Not even the followers of Arminius would have intended for this to happen.
3. The ‘Calvinism vs Arminianism’ debate has such a polarising effect on Christians because they each attempt to summarise a set of truths from opposite perspectives. The Five Points of Calvinism focus exclusively on God’s sovereign, eternal purposes, while the Five Points of Arminianism focus exclusively on Human Responsibility. This narrow focus makes them antithetical to one another, and they’ll have the same effect on people who advocate for either one.
4. If you wanted to know what Jacob Arminius actually taught, you can purchase his three volume set of works online, or perhaps start with Reconsidering Arminius – Beyond the Reformed and Wesleyan Divide, that was written with the intent to correct a number of popular misconceptions.[ii] And if you wanted a more thorough summary of Calvin’s theology you should read the Westminster Confession of Faith (1646)[iii], or if you have the time you could purchase and read his own works, The Institutes of the Christian Religion.
5. Be mindful that the TULIP acronym was first used in print in 1915. It was popularised in a book written by Loraine Boettner in 1932 called The Doctrine of Predestination, and from here this truncated summary of Calvin’s beliefs regarding the narrow scope of God’s sovereignty became known as ‘Calvinism’. Although these points contain elements of what Calvin taught on this specific subject, they’re an inadequate, unbalanced reflection of his theology.
We’ll begin with the Five Points of Calvinism since the Five Points of Arminianism were written to refute these ‘Doctrines of Grace’ (as they’ve come to be known). Then we’ll look at the Five Points of Arminianism to see what the Remonstrants (followers of Arminius) were trying to guard.
We’ll very briefly explain each one, see where they’re grounded in scripture, then I’ll briefly comment on each doctrine to help us think carefully about them. By God’s grace, we’ll develop a balanced theology upholding both the absolute sovereignty of God in his eternal decrees on the one hand, and the absolute responsibility of man to make the decisions on the other.
Bearing in mind, as theologian Don Carson has rightly said, ‘the tension between God’s sovereignty and human responsibility is not a problem to be solved; rather it is a framework to be explored.’[iv]
I pray that what is written below will enable us to have healthy discussions that will serve to clarify truth and bring unity among God’s people.
Five Points of Calvinism
1. Total Depravity
This doctrine teaches that since the Fall of Man in Genesis 3, every part of our human nature is affected by sin. It’s not saying that we are as bad as we could be nor is it saying we are all as bad as Hitler. It means we are totally affected by the effects of sin making us spiritually dead (Ephesians 2:1). As a result, we are not able to save ourselves or respond positively to the gospel without the help of God’s Spirit, because our slavery to sin and spiritual blindness render us incapable of both.
Scripture to support the Total Depravity of our human nature;
Genesis 8:20–21
Then Noah built an altar to the Lord and, taking some of all the clean animals and clean birds, he sacrificed burnt offerings on it. The Lord smelled the pleasing aroma and said in his heart: “Never again will I curse the ground because of humans, even though every inclination of the human heart is evil from childhood.”
Romans 3:9–12
What shall we conclude then? Do we have any advantage? Not at all! For we have already made the charge that Jews and Gentiles alike are all under the power of sin. As it is written:
“There is no one righteous, not even one;
there is no one who understands;
there is no one who seeks God.
All have turned away,
they have together become worthless;
there is no one who does good,
not even one.”
Romans 8:5–8
Those who live according to the flesh have their minds set on what the flesh desires; but those who live in accordance with the Spirit have their minds set on what the Spirit desires. The mind governed by the flesh is death, but the mind governed by the Spirit is life and peace. The mind governed by the flesh is hostile to God; it does not submit to God’s law, nor can it do so. Those who are in the realm of the flesh cannot please God.
1 Corinthians 2:14
The person without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God but considers them foolishness, and cannot understand them because they are discerned only through the Spirit.
2 Corinthians 4:4
The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel that displays the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.
Reflection:
We should agree with this assessment of our fallen nature and affirm that apart from God’s Spirit working in our lives to illuminate our hearts and minds, we cannot understand what God has done for us in Christ. However, this doesn’t mean we are without excuse for our sin or our failure to find God. Scripture clearly teaches that we are both spiritually dead and wholly accountable to God for the sinful decisions that we make. This is why salvation must be a work of God from beginning to end.
2. Unconditional Election
This doctrine upholds the idea that all who end up united to Jesus by faith, do so because God chose to reveal himself to them for no other reason apart from his own free pleasure and will (Ephesians 1:4–6 and 11). It claims that our salvation is the result of God’s mercy, not simply in sending Jesus, but by sending his Spirit to open our hearts and minds ‘so that we may understand what God has freely given us’ (1 Corinthians 2:12). This doctrine teaches that our salvation is the result of God’s mercy upon certain individuals whom he has chosen, and is ‘unconditional’ because their election was not the result of any merit or reward for good works done by them.
Scripture to support the doctrine of Unconditional Election;
Matthew 11:25–26
At that time Jesus said, “I praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and learned, and revealed them to little children. Yes, Father, for this is what you were pleased to do.”
Matthew 16:16–17
Simon Peter answered, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.”
Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by my Father in heaven.”
Romans 9:10–16
Not only that, but Rebekah’s children were conceived at the same time by our father Isaac. Yet, before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad—in order that God’s purpose in election might stand: not by works but by him who calls—she was told, “The older will serve the younger.” Just as it is written: “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.”
What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all! For he says to Moses,
“I will have mercy on whom I have mercy,
and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.”It does not, therefore, depend on human desire or effort, but on God’s mercy.
1 Thessalonians 1:4–5
For we know, brothers and sisters loved by God, that he has chosen you, because our gospel came to you not simply with words but also with power, with the Holy Spirit and deep conviction.
Reflection:
We should believe that the scriptures teach us that according to the infinite authority of God, he is free to show mercy to whomever he chooses, and does so for all who are genuinely united to God through faith in Jesus. It is clear that the ‘elect’ are a category of people who are chosen by God for salvation, but we are not told how the ‘elect’ are chosen or why them and not others. We are simply told that they are, and that God has the authority to do so (Psalm 115:3; Romans 9:19–21, see also Isaiah 29:16 and 45:9).
The tension here comes as we consider God’s right to show mercy to particular sinners in light of the fact that God does not show favouritism (Romans 2:11), that the gospel is for all people (Romans 3:22–24), that all people are commanded to respond to the gospel by faith and obedience (Acts 26:20), and that all who reject the gospel are completely responsible for their decision (John 3:36). Although we recognise the tension, we should not apply human reason to reconcile these complementary truths because we know that if we do we will deny one set of truths in favour of the other, and fail to uphold the full counsel of God. We will also perpetuate the divide between God’s Sovereignty and Human Responsibility, while the scriptures uphold and proclaim both.
3. Limited Atonement
This doctrine teaches that the scope of Jesus’ death on the cross was limited to those who would genuinely come to believe in Jesus, not for the whole world.
Scripture to support the doctrine of Limited Atonement;
John 10:11
“I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep.”
John 10:15
“I lay down my life for the sheep.”
John 17:9
“I am not praying for the world, but for those you have given me, for they are yours.”
Ephesians 5:25
“Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her…”
Reflection:
We should be able to see from scripture that from the perspective of God’s eternal purposes, Jesus knew exactly who he was dying for. But we also see Christ’s death on the cross spoken about in scripture from another perspective, enabling the Apostle John to say of Jesus, ‘He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world’ (1 John 2:2).
And so we should affirm that Jesus’ death was both specifically for the elect, and generally for the whole world, depending on whether we are speaking from God’s eternal perspective, or from a more general perspective that illustrates the fact that Jesus’ death on the cross was sufficient for all.
4. Irresistible Grace:
This doctrine teaches that all those God has chosen or ‘elected’ from eternity past will be called by the gospel, united to Jesus by faith, and will go home with Jesus on the Last Day. It teaches that God’s grace is effective and cannot be resisted by those he has chosen.
Scripture to support the doctrine of Irresistible Grace;
John 6:37
“All those the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never drive away.”
John 10:16
“I have other sheep that are not of this sheep pen. I must bring them also. They too will listen to my voice, and there shall be one flock and one shepherd.”
Acts 13:48
When the Gentiles heard this, they were glad and honored the word of the Lord; and all who were appointed for eternal life believed.
Romans 8:28–30
And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose. For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers and sisters. And those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified.
Reflection:
We should believe that what God has planned from eternity concerning those he has ‘appointed for eternal life’ (Acts 13:48) will be saved according to the sovereign will of God, as the scriptures quoted above clearly state. However, this is only half the story from the perspective of God’s eternal plans and purposes. The other half of the story is from the perspective of God’s prescriptive will, which is what he ‘prescribes’ (or ‘advises’ or ‘commends’). From this perspective God has offered salvation to all, and all are given the opportunity to repent and believe. From this perspective all mankind is accountable for their decision to believe in Jesus or not, and they can resist the Holy Spirit’s witness (Acts 7:51; 1 Corinthians 10:1–5).
Again, it depends on what perspective we are looking at God’s grace from, and in different contexts the authors of the scriptures will portray the truth from different perspectives. We can’t reconcile these complementary truths with our limited reason, we can only trust what God has said, enjoy the security of knowing that our salvation is part of an eternal work that God is accomplishing in the world by his Spirit, and urge people to respond to whatever degree of grace they’ve been given with every fibre of their being; whether that is simply through the revelation of himself in his creation (Romans 1:18–20) or through the gospel preached.
5. Perseverance of the Saints:
This doctrine proclaims an eternal security for all who genuinely believe in Jesus. It teaches that all who genuinely believe in Jesus will be held secure by the will of God and will not fall away. They will persevere by faith in Jesus because God will not let them go. All who do renounce Christ and fail to persevere by faith in him show they were never truly saved in the first place (1 John 2:19).
Scripture to support the doctrine of the Perseverance of the Saints;
John 10:27–29
“My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me. I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one will snatch them out of my hand. My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all; no one can snatch them out of my Father’s hand.”
Philippians 1:6
… being confident of this, that he who began a good work in you will carry it on to completion until the day of Christ Jesus.
1 Thessalonians 5:23–24
May God himself, the God of peace, sanctify you through and through. May your whole spirit, soul and body be kept blameless at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ. The one who calls you is faithful, and he will do it.
Jude 24–25
To him who is able to keep you from stumbling and to present you before his glorious presence without fault and with great joy— to the only God our Savior be glory, majesty, power and authority, through Jesus Christ our Lord, before all ages, now and forevermore! Amen.
Reflection:
We should believe that if a person has genuinely put their faith in Jesus they will be kept safe by God’s power and persevere trusting in Jesus until the end. If a person appears to have fallen away from Christ, it is because they never truly believed in him. We should take this position because of the eternal security that our Lord Jesus promises for those who are his.
We should also take the warning passages of scripture seriously too (e.g. Hebrews 3:7–14, 6:4–6 and 10:26–29), without undermining eternal security for those who have genuinely been saved by God’s grace. We should recognise in these warning passages a reminder that there will be some among us who say, “Lord, Lord”, but fail to do the will of God (Matthew 7:21). The many warning passages we see throughout scripture don’t threaten the eternal security of God’s elect, they warn the church as whole to do what they can to remain faithful to the Lord in word and deed to ‘confirm their calling and election’ (2 Peter 1:5–11).
Five Points of Arminianism
1. Human Ability despite Depravity
Arminius’ followers did not deny that the whole of man was affected by sin, but that God had given a degree of grace to all people so that everyone had the ability to choose Jesus. This form of common grace was called ‘prevenient grace’, and it was this gift from God that enabled mankind to respond positively to the gospel, despite being ‘dead to God’ and ‘slaves of sin’.
Scripture to support the doctrine of Human Ability despite Depravity;
Ezekiel 18:32
“For I take no pleasure in the death of anyone, declares the Sovereign Lord. Repent and live!”
John 7:17
“Anyone who chooses to do the will of God will find out whether my teaching comes from God or whether I speak on my own.”
John 12:32
“And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all people to myself.”
1 Timothy 2:3–4
This is good, and pleases God our Savior, who wants all people to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth.
Reflection:
It seems like Arminius used human reason to bridge the gap between the depravity of mankind making them unresponsive to God’s word on the one hand, and God’s command for mankind to repent and believe the gospel on the other. Like Arminius, we should believe that mankind is both depraved and unresponsive to the gospel, and we should also believe that God has commanded all mankind to respond to the gospel by faith. However, the idea of ‘prevenient grace’ is not taught in scripture. We should be willing to sit with the tension that exists in scripture and uphold both sets of truths without trying to reconcile what is incomprehensible to us. Moses, David and Paul all had the humility to admit a limit to their knowledge of God’s purposes, and so should we (See Deuteronomy 29:29; Psalm 131; Romans 11:33 respectively).
2. Conditional Election
Most Arminians believe that God’s election of sinners to be saved is the result of him knowing before time who will respond to Jesus by faith. So, God chooses who he knows will choose him, making God’s election of us contingent (or ‘dependent’) on our choice of him, and not the other way around.
Scripture to support the doctrine of Conditional Election;
Romans 8:29
For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers and sisters.
1 Peter 1:1–2
To God’s elect, exiles scattered throughout the provinces of Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia and Bithynia, who have been chosen according to the foreknowledge of God the Father…
Reflection:
The doctrine of Conditional Election relies on two unbiblical premises.
The first, a misunderstanding of God’s ‘foreknowledge’. For God to ‘foreknow’ someone is not the same thing as him knowing that something was going to happen. God knows all things. Instead, when we read about God’s foreknowledge of people (e.g. Romans 8:29) or a nation – e.g. Amos 3:2, “You only have I known of all the families of the earth…” (ESV / KJV / NASB) it’s not referring to the fact that God has knowledge of them, because of course God knows them; he knows everything! His point is, of all the nations, “Israel, I chose you!” To know them intimately, by setting his affection on them in preparation to do them an eternal weight of good.
The wonder of God’s ‘foreknowledge’ of the church in the New Testament is that this language that was first applied to God’s chosen Old Testament nation, Israel, is now applied to those who are in Christ, the chosen people of God in the New Covenant era.
The second unbiblical premise was making God’s eternal decrees dependent on the choices we make, undermining the very foundation that the Apostles are trying to build our assurance upon. That foundation is that our decisions rest secure because they rest in God’s eternal decrees, and not the other way around. The idea that God’s eternal decrees are based on our decisions is a man-centred misconception that undermines the sovereign authority of God who is the first cause of all things, wholly self-sufficient, and dependent on no one.
We should recognise the tension that Conditional Election seeks to reconcile, since it’s hard to reconcile how we can be held accountable for the decisions we make in a universe where God is absolutely sovereign over all things, including all the decisions that free moral agents, like human beings, make. But we should not apply human reason to reconcile these tensions. Instead, we should let the scripture speak for itself and uphold both sets of truths unashamedly, knowing that what is a tension for man is no tension to God.
3. Unlimited Atonement
Arminians believe that Jesus’ death on the cross was for all mankind, without distinction. This enables the gospel to go out to all mankind to give everyone an opportunity to receive the forgiveness that Jesus came to bring.
Scripture to support the doctrine of Unlimited Atonement;
Matthew 11:28
“Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest.”
John 3:16
“For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.”
Titus 2:11
For the grace of God has appeared that offers salvation to all people.
1 John 2:2
He [Jesus] is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world.
Reflection:
We should affirm that Jesus’ death on the cross was sufficient for all, and that Jesus died for the entire race of mankind. In this, he truly is the Saviour of the world (1 John 4:14). We should also acknowledge that from a divine perspective where God’s eternal purposes are in view, Jesus knew exactly who he was dying for, as Jesus spoke about in John 10:14–15 saying, “I know my sheep … I lay my life down for the sheep.” And so we should uphold both Unlimited and Limited Atonement, depending on which perspective we are looking at Christ’s atonement from.
4. Resistible Grace
Arminians believe that people can resist God’s grace, having the ability to choose for themselves whether they will follow Jesus or reject him.
Scripture to support the doctrine of Resistible Grace;
Jeremiah 7:25–26
From the time your ancestors left Egypt until now, day after day, again and again I sent you my servants the prophets. But they did not listen to me or pay attention. They were stiff-necked and did more evil than their ancestors.’
John 12:42–43
Yet at the same time many even among the leaders believed in him. But because of the Pharisees they would not openly acknowledge their faith for fear they would be put out of the synagogue; for they loved human praise more than praise from God.
Acts 7:51
“You stiff-necked people! Your hearts and ears are still uncircumcised. You are just like your ancestors: You always resist the Holy Spirit!”
2 Corinthians 5:10
For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each of us may receive what is due us for the things done while in the body, whether good or bad.
Reflection:
It is clear from the passages of scripture quoted above that there is a work of God’s Spirit in a person’s life that they can resist. The scriptures teach that there are some who are ‘enlightened’ and ‘taste’ spiritual realities who do not continue on to salvation – e.g. Hebrews 6:4–6. However, it would be wrong for us to conclude that this is the sum total of God’s work in the world, and that he doesn’t also work by his Spirit in other cases to secure the salvation of the ‘elect’.
Jesus clearly taught that those who genuinely recognise him as the Son of God and Messiah do so by the will of God the Father (Matthew 16:17; John 6:37; 10:27–29, etc.). We are also taught in scripture that from God’s perspective, God’s eternal plans and purposes are being accomplished in the world by his Spirit, who is able to accompany the preaching of the gospel with ‘deep conviction’ resulting in genuine conversion (1 Thessalonians 1:4–5).
The doctrine of Resistible Grace only deals with a narrow set of circumstances from a human perspective as if that’s the only way God works in the world by his Spirit, and fails to recognise the complex nature of the Spirit’s work in the world that Jesus taught us is beyond comprehension, though we will be able to see his effects in the lives of those around us (John 3:8).
We should recognise what this doctrine is trying to guard but also be wise enough to see that on its own it undermines the sovereign power of God who is able to make us alive to the reality of the gospel in the world, transforming us from death to life, giving us the light of the knowledge of God’s glory displayed in the face of Christ (2 Corinthians 4:6).
5. Possibility of Falling from Grace
In Arminianism, a person who has genuinely believed in Jesus can fall away from the grace that they once received and lose their salvation. This ability to fall away from Christ is the result of people having been given free will to choose Christ and the freedom to turn away from him, if they so choose.
Scripture to support the doctrine of the Possibility of Falling from Grace;
Matthew 24:10–13
At that time many will turn away from the faith and will betray and hate each other, and many false prophets will appear and deceive many people. Because of the increase of wickedness, the love of most will grow cold, but the one who stands firm to the end will be saved.
Romans 11:22
Consider therefore the kindness and sternness of God: sternness to those who fell, but kindness to you, provided that you continue in his kindness. Otherwise, you also will be cut off.
2 Timothy 2:12
… if we endure,
we will also reign with him.
If we disown him,
he will also disown us.
Hebrews 10:26–27
If we deliberately keep on sinning after we have received the knowledge of the truth, no sacrifice for sins is left, but only a fearful expectation of judgment and of raging fire that will consume the enemies of God.
Reflection:
Although we should recognise the many warnings in scripture directed to the church about turning away from Christ, we should not let these passages undermine the eternal security that is also given to genuine believers. As Jesus predicted, ‘many’ will claim to know him but don’t (Matthew 7:21–23), but we should not let these warnings about false disciples undermine the precious promise of eternal security to those who genuinely believe, who ‘were marked in him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit, who is a deposit guaranteeing our inheritance’ (Ephesians 1:13–14).
If this doctrine simply stated that disingenuous people can fall away from their profession of faith, we would not have an issue with it. However, since it claims genuine believers can lose their salvation despite the Lord’s words of assurance (e.g. John 10:27–29 and Ephesians 2:6–7), we should reject it wholeheartedly. As John taught us, those who fall away prove they never really belonged (1 John 2:19), and in the same way those who persevere do so by God’s power preserving them by his grace (Philippians 1:6).
Conclusion
The purpose for this article is not to convince anyone of either set of doctrines, but to show that both are attempts to understand and uphold what is written in scripture. There is a theology that makes sense of all the passages cited above, but we’ll only be able to find that narrow path and become mature in Christ if we’re willing to speak truth in love to one another with hearts and minds open to the truth of God’s word.
As stated in a popular online resource,
‘… both systems fail to adequately explain the relationship between God’s sovereignty and mankind’s free will—due to the fact that it is impossible for a finite human mind to discern a concept only God can fully understand.’[v]
We should recognise that since the days of the early church doctrinal error has served to clarify the truth of the scriptures, and that will continue in and through us if we can have the humility to admit that we are all doing our best to understand the infinite mind of God, whose judgments are ‘unsearchable’ and paths ‘beyond tracing out’ (Romans 11:33).
As a church whose final authority is the written word of God, we should uphold the absolute Sovereignty of God in all things even as we uphold the absolute responsibility of man who will be judged according to the decisions he makes. We should also acknowledge the tension between God’s sovereign purposes and human responsibility is not resolved in scripture. If we apply human reason to reconcile these tensions we’ll end up falling into error and divisive, polarising mindsets that I am praying we no longer submit to.
When Jesus was asked by his disciples why he spoke in parables, he told them unashamedly, “Because the knowledge of the secrets of the kingdom of heaven has been given to you, but not to them” (Matthew 13:11). We have to be humble enough to recognise God’s authority and wisdom to do what he pleases without applying human reason to reconcile the truths he reveals, or else we’ll conclude in our hearts that he’s unjust or unfair (God forbid!), simply because we don’t understand the mechanics of how it all works.
At the same time we must be willing to recognise that we are all predisposed to lean left or right, with respect to politics, morality and theology. The church, however, is not left or right, but the product of God’s word that draws us all upward and inward as we grow in our knowledge of Christ, together. I pray we recognise this and are willing to listen to each other’s perspectives before testing them, not through the lens of our dispositions or impervious theological frameworks, but through the word of God.
Ultimately, I pray the church of God will rest secure in the sovereign, eternal plans and purposes of our everlasting, infinitely wise Father in Heaven, and being at rest in the palm of his hand, go out with confidence and humility to make Jesus known in word and deed.
In saying that, we should all seek to develop a coherent theological system that enables us to rightly handle the word of God, and we should seek that out as we engage in conversation with each other.
As we bring this to a close, and to make the point that we need to carefully consider how to understand God’s word, consider the following questions that can be answered correctly from two completely separate perspectives, depending on whether we are answering the question from the perspective of human responsibility or God’s sovereignty.
1. Who is the author of the letter to the Romans?
Paul (Romans 1:1) or God through his Spirit (2 Peter 1:21)
2. Who is responsible for the decisions that you make as a Christian?
You (Philippians 2:12) or God (Philippians 2:13)? See also Colossians 1:28-29
3. Who lives your Christian life?
Christ (Galatians 2:20a) or You (Galatians 2:20b)
4. Did you find God or did God find you?
(Galatians 4:9)
5. Who is responsible to ensure you persevere in Christ?
You (Hebrews 3:14) or God (Philippians 1:6)
6. Who is responsible for a person’s repentance?
You (Acts 2:38) or God (2 Timothy 2:23–25)
7. Who is responsible for ensuring your obedience?
You (Ezekiel 18:32) or God (Ezekiel 36:24–27)
8. Who is responsible for death?
Satan (John 10:10a) or God (Deuteronomy 32:39)
9. Who should be credited for the decision you made to meet with the church on Sunday?
I pray you’ll see it’s both you and the Lord working in you, if the Lord is working in you. The Lord will reward each of us for the decisions we make to honour him, and in the same way we give thanks to God for all the good we do, knowing that apart from his free and unmerited grace, “we would have become like Sodom, we would have been like Gomorrah” (Romans 9:29 and Isaiah 1:9).
_________________
[i] An example of some of the New Testament passages that refer to the doctrine of predestination / election: Matthew 22:14; Matthew 24:22, Matthew 24:24, Matthew 24:31; Mark 4:11–12; Luke 10:21–22; 18:7; John 15:16, 19; Acts 4:28; 13:48; Romans 8:29–30, Romans 8:33; Romans 9:6–23; Romans 11:5, Romans 11:7, Romans 11:28; Romans 16:13; 1 Corinthians 1:27–28; Galatians 1:15; Ephesians 1:4–5; Colossians 3:12; 1 Thessalonians 1:4; 2 Thessalonians 2:13; 2 Timothy 2:10; Titus 1:1; James 2:5; 1 Peter 1:2; 2:9; 2 Peter 1:10; 2 John 1, 13; Revelation 17:14.
[ii] From the Publisher: ‘What this book seeks to correct is the misinterpretation of Arminius as one whose theology provides a stark contrast to the Reformed tradition as a whole. Indeed, this book will demonstrate instead that Arminius is far more in line with Reformed orthodoxy than popularly believed and show that what emerges as Arminianism in the theology of the Remonstrants and Wesleyan movements was in fact not the theology of Arminius but a development of and sometimes departure from it.’
[iii] https://www.presbyterian.org.au/images/downloads/wcf/WCF-AustVersion-2019.pdf
[iv] D. A. Carson, Divine Sovereignty and Human Responsibility: Biblical perspectives in tension
[v] https://www.gotquestions.org/arminianism.html
Want to find out more?
Please reach out to us below