Calvinism, a Resurgence of Heresy or a Resurgence of Truth? Part I

Calvinism, a Resurgence of Heresy or a Resurgence of Truth?

© 2009 K. Dayton Hartman II

In recent years, a controversial, theological, resurgence has taken place in the evangelical world. This resurgence is the rapid and recent growth of those who identify themselves as Calvinists. In my own evangelical faith community, the Southern Baptist Convention, Calvinism has taken center stage in recent years.  In fact, one-third of those graduating from SBC seminaries identify themselves as five-point Calvinists.  Sadly, this reclaiming of Reformation theology has ignited a theological war of words.  Some of those proclaiming human autonomy in salvation have compared Calvinists to Muslims.  Likewise, those affirming the sovereignty of God in salvific matters frequently accuse free-will proponents of falling prey to the wiles of Roman Catholicism. So, what can be done to bring about peace? How can both sides of the debate over Calvinism come to a truce? I firmly believe that by dispelling the gross mischaracterizations of Calvinism is one step that can be taken to ease the ever growing tensions. Therefore, I will attempt to address some of the key texts at the center of the debate and offer a fair appraisal of what many self-professed Calvinists actually believe.

John 6

At the heart of the Calvinist system lays the belief that it is God who saves, not because of mans response to God, but rather in spite of mans rejection of God. One key passage regarding this belief is John 6:37-40, “All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out. For I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will but the will of him who sent me. And this is the will of him who sent me that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me but raise it up on the last day. For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.” Notice that everyone who the Father gives the Son will come. This is not a possibility or probability but rather a guarantee. Further, Christ Himself makes a guarantee, that everyone given unto Him will be saved. They shall not be lost but will remain in Christ (See John 15). It is also clear that Christ does the work and will of the Father. The will of the Father is that Christ keeps and does not lose any of those given to Him (which He won’t) but that Christ will raise them up. This is a promise of resurrection. Further, it is the Father’s will that everyone who believes on Christ take part in the resurrection. However, please note that ONLY those given to the Son by the Father are promised resurrection.

This fact finds further confirmation in John 6:44 when Christ says, “No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day.” The reality relayed here is that ONLY those given to the Son by the Father will be saved and the Father ONLY draws those He intends to save. If this “drawing” were general or universal the text states that salvation would be general or universal, but it isn’t. Its limited to those who the Father gives to the Son, which all evangelicals will readily admit will be a select group.

Romans 9

The previous passage inevitably causes one to think of the words of Paul in Romans 9. In Romans 9, Paul writes regarding God’s sovereignty in the act of election. Romans 9:11-13 says, “Though they (Jacob and Esau) were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad–in order that God’s purpose for election might continue, not because of works but because of him who calls—she was told, ‘The older shall serve the younger.’ As it is written, ‘Jacob have I loved, but Esau I hated.’” Notice in this passage that the election of Jacob and Esau occurred not because of any foreknowledge of their actions or choices but rather the electing took place regardless of their actions. Further, this was NOT a single event of election but the text states that this was simply part of God’s continuing purpose for election. Some attempt to circumvent this fact by stating that Paul is referring to the election of Israel. However, the context of Romans chapters 8-11 would negate such a notion. This entire block of Scripture deals with the position of each individual member of the human race and their relationship to God’s plan of salvation. The context demands such an in interpretation. To make the leap from Paul clearly addressing individuals to people groups requires a theological presupposition that defies the context and flow of the text.

II Peter 3

An oft-repeated text in the free-will versus divine sovereignty debate is II Peter 3:9, the Apostle Peter wrote “The Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance.” Those in support of human autonomy believe this text demonstrates that God would not elect some to salvation while leaving others in their sins, instead, we are all equally called and drawn to Christ (a belief which is incompatible with John 6). However, the context of II Peter entirely refutes this notion. The greeting at the opening of the letter states that Peter is specifically writing to Christians: “Simeon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, to those who have obtained a faith of equal standing with ours by the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ: May grace and peace be multiplied to you in the knowledge of God and of Jesus our Lord.” (II Peter 1:1-3).  Further, the third chapter of II Peter begins with a reiteration that the subject of this letter is believers: “This is now the second letter that I am writing to you, beloved.” Then again in verse eight Peter wrote, “But do not overlook this one fact, beloved, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.” Verse eight is without question directed toward the subject of the letter, believers awaiting the return of Christ. In the next verse Peter clarifies for his Christian readers that Christ has not forgotten them but is waiting to return until all those whom are to believe do in fact come to belief. Notice verse nine again, “The Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance.” The “you” in the text can only (under all known rules of grammar) refer to the elect. Therefore, following all known rules of grammar (and remaining in accord with John 6), the “all” in the text must be and can only be the elect of God.  Rather than affirming anything resembling human autonomy or universalism in salvation, II Peter 3:9 (when taken in context) affirms the divine sovereignty in salvific matters.

Theology and Philosophy

Another consideration one must make when proposing human autonomy is the nature of God. All orthodox Christians affirm that God is free to do as He pleases. All affirm that He knows the future. Some attempt resolve the issue of human responsibility and divine sovereignty by proposing that God foreknew the choice humans would freely make and then based up the future choices of humans, He predestined those who He knew would accept Him to salvation. One issue could be raised theologically (along with Scripture) to object to such a proposition. In order for God to predestine people based upon their own future choices, God must be, to some degree, “contingent” because His plans are dictated by the actions of a finite being. This means that the unmovable God is acted upon by something outside of Himself. This creates an entire series of issues that erode Christian orthodoxy and the understanding of God that has been held among Christians for nearly two thousand years. If God’s act of predestining is contingent upon the actions of others then one must believe that an infinite being is moved by a finite being. Such a belief removes from God’s nature the attribute of necessity. Once necessity has been removed God becomes contingent. Once God becomes contingent, theism collapses.