REFORMED THEOLOGY AND CALVINISM

Posted by expedition44 on

Calvinism and/or reformed theology (which some consider having traits of Calvinism but not all of it) has never been appealing to me. So this article may be better deemed, something like, “my issues with reformed theology” or “Why I am not reformed in my theology.” My father was in opposition to this kind of theology, the closest I ever got to it was when he begrudgingly allowed me to attend Moody Bible Insititute. Despite their ever-growing reformed bend, he supported my decision to attend. My dad was confident that he had equipped me with the foundational tools to explore the Bible for myself, and I will admit – he had given me a natural advantage of recognizing the slant of reformed theology from an early age. Many of my close friends are reformed and I first want to preface this article by saying my reformed and Calvinist friends are my brothers and sisters in Christ and are part of a God–honoring movement which has preached Christ, detested sin, acknowledged that God rules on His sovereign throne and proclaimed the glorious doctrine of justification by grace through faith according to the Scriptures. I am even sometimes jealous of how they have convinced the world that much of what their view teaches (PSA, Ransom and Debt theories of atonement, ETC [eternal conscious torment], and predestination to name a few) as simply what the Bible teaches. For instance, if you are using the Romans Road or some step plan of salvation to tell someone what they need to do to be saved, then you likely have taken on some Calvinistic ideology without even knowing it. The average Christian American naturally believes some reformed theology as part of their faith likely because they haven’t really ever dug into the “why and how” or had someone that shepherded them to openly seeing an alternate Biblical theology. Many casual church attenders and seminary students alike have not fully explored the ins and outs of reformed thinking or the alternatives to it. However, some have and have determined that this is their best interpretation. I have a good friend from Moody that is reformed that is extremely well educated and knows the ins and outs of theology and has a very good view of reformed theology. Personally, I gravitate towards either taking the “whole none yards” of Calvinism or none of it in terms of views that hold more water. The picking and choosing of some points but not others within Calvinism make the least sense to me, which frankly is where most American evangelical churches land.

Some have even left the faith because these reformed ways of thinking didn’t add up, and they thought this was their only option. Those that have left, lacked a better understanding of the Scriptures and theology (and therefore God Himself) & chose to walk away completely thinking it was their only option. There are many repercussions to thinking like a Calvinist and most of them don’t look a lot like Jesus. Calvinists have a reputation for wanting to fight in their theology. Sometimes this is phrased as “standing strong”, or “fighting for what they believe,” but many view Reformed theology as the traditional understanding of Christianity. I always like to remind people that my Free Will early church view is far older than theirs and would therefore be the more traditional or “conservative” view. At any rate, I invite you to peacefully consider perhaps a better theological view either way. I always want to encourage you to take your time. Major decisions in life and faith don’t and shouldn’t happen easily or quickly. Let the spirit move you to an unbiased truth towards whatever direction you land based on the spirit’s conviction and the word of the Lord.

I say this peacefully, but quite transparently, quite frankly if my choice was to believe in the God and doctrine of Calvinism or walk away, I am afraid I also may have chosen to walk away. Calvinism just doesn’t add up in my opinion and I will tell you why. Please do not take this as a personal rant against reformed theology. I just want to share from a perspective of spending the better part of my life into the exploration of the Bible and why I land on the free will side rather than the reformed side.

As Leighton Flowers (someone who was a Calvinist and claims he was delivered of it), says in his post, “I believe there are many who are hoping to convince someone they care about to leave behind their Calvinistic beliefs.  I hate to tell them, but it is doubtful a blog post or a podcast will accomplish that feat. It is very difficult to convince YOURSELF to leave a long held theological perspective and next to impossible to convince another.  For me it was a painstaking three year journey after I engaged in an in-depth study of the subject.  I had no desire to leave Calvinism and I fought tooth and nail to defend my beloved “Doctrines of Grace” against the truths my studies led me to see.  There was no single book, article, or discussion that led me to recant my adherence to the TULIP systematic.”

If this teaching is new to you, please dig in and give yourself a prayerful unbiased approach to seeking the truth before the Lord. Big decisions often need time and a receptive spirit. If you are hoping to change someone’s mind by sharing this article, be gentle, be open to their exploration, and shepherd their concerns and discussion. Also be open to their biblical point of view! It may take some time and the character of Jesus displayed in you.

LOGICAL – PHILOSOPHICAL – ONTOLOGICAL – THEOLOGICAL

I have many issues with Reformed and Calvinistic thinking. The problems run deep, seeping into nearly every biblical consideration, but my major issue looms in the idea that we are utterly depraved, and completely incapable beings, stuck in the miry muck to continually fail over and over again likes pigs in defilement (which I believe was literally and figurately Jesus’ message to us.) Thinking this way leads to doom and gloom ideology sending the trajectory of the spiritually reclaimed catapulting over and over again back into the wrong direction. Rather than claiming renewed life in Jesus and living in freedom and walking a road that leads to joy; reformed thinking requires you to keep desiring a deliverance over and over and never being capable of walking the Edenic life Jesus has planned for us on the earth and into the next spiritually. Reformed Theology essentially leaves you believing you are unable to claim what Jesus offers to you. Reformed thinking needs to keep adjusting what seems to be the clear and simple path of freedom and redemption to have to be continually re-examined in a faulty lens resulting in theological gymnastics. In short, my biggest issue with reformed thinking is that it doesn’t follow the path to freedom that is such a large biblical motif in the lens of the Bible from start to finish. It doesn’t fit with the nature of God to perpetually transform you into His image. God didn’t design us to remain in sin and defilement but gave us a plan to return to the beautiful Edenic life today and on a path to sanctification that leads to a completely renewed spiritual being and recreated heaven and earth. Jesus asks us to walk away from the depravity and claim new life in Him. The Tov life.

In the Bible the Exodus story becomes a recursive biblical theme. In this motif the foreshadow of deliverance was the marking of the doors and passing of death that led way to a cognitive free will choice to leave the former life and walk towards God. It was an individual making a choice by their free will to step out of bondage and ask for life. That offering of the gift of grace shows true in both the original exodus story, many exodus motifs throughout the pages of the Bible, and in the New Testament through Jesus in the “new exodus.” This is the reciprocal circle of grace. God offers the option to choose life, the people then responded by showing their actions to accept that plan for them (which was blood on the doorpost in the original story.) God, then accepting this, delivers them. From there they are asked by God to follow the Torah in devotion and be “all in” following the Lord and no longer living in the ways of their past. The completed circle is for God’s people to follow in complete devotion, which is viewed as a theocracy. But as we know, in the OT the Israelites chose man over God time and time again. They made repeated cognitive decisions that gave in to the yetzer ha ra rather than yetzer tov (Hebrew words describing the inclination towards desires, one evil, the other good.) Israels story shows that they needed deliverance over and over again, but God’s message to them was that he had already delivered them and now they needed to simply complete the reciprocal act of grace and live by His precepts and claim the image bearing role of the royal priesthood they were created for. Today this seems to be a microcosm of Free will thinking verses reformed theology. Free will believers claim Jesus and live redeemed lives believing they are capable and can walk in Jesus here and now in a beautiful picture of sanctification. Reformed theology seems to wallow in the muck of Israel not understanding the gift given, not believing that they were intended to fully bear the image of God both in this world and the next… they get hung up thinking the voices in their head and even the Bible itself tells them they can’t, they aren’t able. They seem very much to represent the religious hierarchy of Judaism that Jesus constantly was at odds with saying repeatedly that we can’t live in this kind of sanctification. Yet, Jesus over and over taught to not live in our mess; we are asked to live each day walking one step closer to the master. I believe we are all called to take the next step towards the master in discipleship answering the amazing gift, the circular dance of reciprocal grace given to us by Him and expected that we lead others as the hands and feet of Jesus in this same beautiful calling. In Jesus time and today the goal of claiming deliverance and coming to Him through devotion was described as leaving everything on the beach and completely walking in the dust of the rabbi… Life was not simply a repeated deliverance experience that you were stuck in or needed to happen over and over again to be redeemed. Christ’s death, resurrection, ascension, and sending of His spirit was enough once and for all, embrace it and never look back, run with Jesus! Claim your freedom and be all in, completely devoted to this life, here and now set apart to live an incredible sanctified life that truly bears the image of Jesus.

The message to you hasn’t changed…

See, I have set before you today life and prosperity, and death and adversity; in that I command you today to love the Lord your God, to walk in His ways and to keep His commandments and His statutes and His judgments, that you may live and multiply, and that the Lord your God may bless you in the land where you are entering to possess it.  “But if your heart turns away and you will not obey, but are drawn away and worship other gods and serve them, I declare to you today that you shall surely perish.

DEUTERONOMY 30

NOTE: Unfortunately, most of this information has been collected by me in the form of everything from photocopies, notes for and from videos, sloppy quotes from videos and lectures, and who knows what else over the course of the last 20 years. Most of this message is in my head in near photographic form. This is likely the least scholarly post you will ever read from me in terms of giving credit where credit is due and possibly even nearing the line of plagiarism, although I certainly would not do that intentionally and have done my best to at least mention people’s names that I believe the content originated from. But please accept any apologies, and if you recognize anything as quoted, please let me know and I would gladly give credit. As I will do my best to keep this concise, I could likely write book upon book on several of the subjects at hand; this article will simply seek to establish a launching ground and give a basic premise for thought and theology.

Drryan@gocovenant.com

Here are some current “reformed” views you may be familiar with: (You also might be a Calvinist if you agree with most of what the following views represent.)

COVENANT: The Reformed tradition is largely represented (but not limited to) the Presbyterians, Lutherans, and Reformed Baptist denominations. Covenant theology (also known as covenantalism, federal theology, or federalism) is reformed. Just to be clear when I or any of my colleagues talk about keeping God’s covenants, we are NOT associating with reformed covenant theology. In the same regard, CTS (Covenant Theological Seminary) in general, also is on the other spectrum, or opposite of reformed theology, being of “Free Will” choice rather than that of a reformed covenant view. To this regard, institutions like CTS are holding to the word “covenant” for what it purely means in the bible and not what “man’s theologies” have turned it into. It is sort of like claiming the rainbow for the Biblical meaning, not what modern America has tried to make it represent. Unfortunately, there isn’t one word to describe the views that those hold that are on the other side or opposite of reformed views. Some would allude that anyone opposite of election theology would be on the “Free Will” side of theology, but again there just isn’t a singular good name for those that are “not in agreement with” reformed theology. I often say, “I have not been reformed” in my theology, meaning I side with the way Christians thought before and after Christ for thousands of years before the reformation changed their minds.

The majority of “spirit led” (charismatic) congregations are not reformed. You have probably picked up on this, but as you will find below, most of the tenets of reformed theology are viewed as “quenching the spirit” by the Pentecostal or charismatic bodies. However, this isn’t always the case, although I might argue that it should be in a better lens of theology. If you believe in the complete moving of the spirit, you are naturally going to lean towards a theology that is more in tune with a dynamic view of God’s workings. Some would say that Reformed theology limits the understanding of the spirit of God. This gets into a conversation on dispensationalism which also tends to most often tie into reformed ways of thinking.

The five solae of reformed theology are: (ANY “CHRIST ALONE” PHRASE IS A CALVINISTIC THING)

  • Sola Scriptura (“Scripture alone”): The Bible alone is our highest authority.
  • Sola Fide (“faith alone”): We are saved through faith alone in Jesus Christ.
  • Sola Gratia (“grace alone”): We are saved by the grace of God alone.
  • Solus Christus (“Christ alone”): Jesus Christ alone is our Lord, Savior, and King.
  • Soli Deo Gloria (“to the glory of God alone”): We live for the glory of God alone.
  • Systematic Theology (as adverse to Biblical Theology)
    • Systematic theology and biblical theology are two ways of studying the teachings of the Bible. Systematic theology tends to be reformed and organizes everything the Bible says on topics such as sin, Christ, and government. It seeks to present the entire scriptural teaching on certain specific truths, or doctrines, one at a time. Biblical theology is a way of reading the Bible as one story in narrative form and tends to be free will and spirit led. It seeks to understand the progressive unfolding of God’s special revelation throughout history, and how Scripture’s many human authors tell one story—about Christ—by one divine author.

POPULAR REFORMED INDIVIDUALS

  • Alistair Begg
  • John Calvin
  • D.A. Carson
  • Francis Chan
  • Matt Chandler
  • Ray Comfort
  • Jonathan Edwards
  • Louie Giglio
  • Wayne Grudem
  • Tim Keller
  • Erwin Lutzer
  • John MacArthur
  • J.I. Packer
  • John Piper
  • David Platt
  • R.C. Sproul
  • Charles Spurgeon
  • B.B. Warfield
  • Rick Warren
  • Paul Washer
  • James White
  • Augustine
  • Martin Luther
  • Joni Eareckson Tada
  • George Whitefield
  • Warren Wiersbe

To the same regard, here are some organizations and websites that you might be familiar with that also are regarded to have a Calvinistic bend to them:

  • The Gospel Coalition
  • 9 Marks
  • Lifeway
  • Desiring God
  • Ligonier
  • Got Questions
  • Christianity.com (Found plenty of Calvinist articles and authors here)
  • Theopedia (as clearly seen in their post on free-will)
  • gty.org (John MacArthur’s Grace To You, a.k.a. “Grace To Few”)
  • Focus on the Family
  • Challies.com (Tim Challies)
  • Josh Harris (joshharris.com)
  • Bible.org
  • Crossway.org
  • carm.org (Matt Slick)
  • compellingtruth.org
  • moodymedia.org (Erwin Lutzer)

TULIP:

During the reformation people started believing that the human soul* was corrupt at or before birth and therefore tried to systematically make sense out of it (thus systematic theology emerged). As a result, these men had to develop a whole system of theology in order to attempt to be consistent. In order to make this system of beliefs easier to remember, they called it “TULIP”. Each letter of this word stands for one of their doctrines. The following are the basic teachings of “TULIP.” To be clear, all (or each and every one) of the points are Calvinism. As I have mentioned, some people that consider themselves to be reformed may only hold to some of these points. Personally, I would affirm that all of it is Calvinism, and I would not agree with any of the points as I will get to. Unfortunately, this article will not be exhaustive but seek as more of an introduction to thinking better. I will give you a starting place for Biblical consideration.

Most evangelical Christians would not consider themselves to be “Calvinists.” In many circles of Christianity this is a bad word. Yet TULIP shows the heart of Calvinistic thinking, and most evangelicals actually believe a good deal of it to be true. I agree that you can hold to part of these views (as I do) or maybe even believe a couple of them to be mostly true, but when you start agreeing with half of them or most of the facets of them you have to ask the questions, are you actually a Calvinist? Tongue and cheek I often say, “you might be a Calvinist if…” you agree with more than one of these tenets. There are 2-point Calvinists and 5-point Calvinists and they are both, or are all “Calvinists.” I would also argue that if your 1 point is the T which is the foundation to Calvinism, then yes, you are still a Calvinist! Therefore, reformed theology is the difference of essentially saying we only adhere to the parts of Calvinism that we want to.

* *the Hebrew word Nephesh is the best term, as the word soul has taken on a lot of platonic meanings that weren’t in sight biblically

Before I jump into my issues with Tulip, the acrostic that summarizes a particularly reformed understanding of salvation, I realize that I would likely not summarize their beliefs to their satisfaction, so please take a moment to read their own explanation of it so that you can truly approach this from an unbiased perspective. Here is a post from Ligonier which is a reformed Herald. Also, to their defense TULIP is intended to be directed towards the work of salvation, some of my issues with it below will no doubt venture past soteriology.

Total Depravity

“T” stands for Total Hereditary Depravity. This is the core belief of the TULIP doctrine. This is the belief that the human soul is born corrupt. As soon as a baby is conceived and/or born, according to this doctrine, it is in sin and in need of a redeemer. There are many arguments that show positively that the human soul is not sinful at birth but only when it commits sin. First of all, notice that God gives man his soul or Nephesh (Ecclesiastes 12:7; Zechariah 12:1). Can or would God give a man an evil soul? This would contradict James 1:17 which says that every good and perfect gift comes from God. God does not bring forth evil (Matthew 7:18). Furthermore, why would Jesus have said that the one had to become like a little child to enter into the kingdom of heaven (Matthew 18:1-3). Was he saying that one has to become sinful and depraved in order to go to heaven? Of course not!

Unconditional Election

This doctrine says that since man is born in such a sinful state, there is nothing that an individual can do in order to be saved. They say that salvation is solely the work of God, not man. After all, we are saved by grace and not works (Romans 3:24). Furthermore, they say that God chooses those who will be saved and those who will be lost. God’s Word is never going to contradict itself. Having said that; there are too many places that show that man must play a part in his salvation. Peter preached on Pentecost that those present must “save themselves” (Acts 2:40). Further, the Lord said that only those who “do” the will of the Father will see the kingdom of heaven (Matthew 7:21). The Bible teaches that we are going to be judged by our “works” on the last day (2 Corinthians 5:10; John 12:48; Ecclesiastes 12:13-14). If this Unconditional Election were true, there would not need to be a judgment, for God has already decided. We would essentially all be created as robots; how would that give glory to God? Finally, this doctrine makes God unjust because he would be condemning some having never given them a chance to serve him, even if they desired to do so.

Limited Atonement

Unconditional Election eventually led to the doctrine of Limited Atonement (one problem requiring a solution for another – thus what I mean by theological gymnastics). This is our “L” in the TULIP doctrine. This is simply the belief that Christ only died for those select few whom God had chosen. Thus, the atonement for sins given by his death was “limited”. First, the Bible says that Christ died for the ungodly (Romans 5:6). Limited Atonement says that He only died for the Godly or perhaps that Christ died also for elect sinners that God would then make Godly. John 3:16 tells us that God so loved the “world”. God did not only love a select few but all men (1 Timothy 2:4; 2 Peter 3:9). The words “FOR ALL” occur many times describing the gospel and all means all.

Irresistible Grace

“I” stands for the next doctrine to spring up called Irresistible Grace. This is the belief that the elect (those chosen by God) are going to be saved whether they desire to be or not. Joshua told us that we have the ability to choose whom we will serve (Joshua 24:15). Peter told those on Pentecost to save themselves (Acts 2:40). Irresistible grace is tractor beam Christianity.

Perseverance of the Saints

Finally, we come to the “P” which is Perseverance of the Saints. We often hear this doctrine called, “Once saved, always saved”. The Scriptures teach that man has the ability to choose whom he will serve and that his eternal soul will be judged on that choice. No one who believes in “Once saved, always saved” would deny that Paul was one of the “elect”. Yet when we read 1 Corinthians 9:27 we find that he constantly “worked” to stay in that saved condition. We can also look to Simon the Sorcerer (Acts 8) as one who was saved and then lost. Judas was another. He was given the ability to do miracles like the rest of the disciples (Matthew 10:1).

BREAKING DOWN THE ISSUES

ORIGINAL SIN

I am well aware that my issues with Calvinism go much deeper than simply the tulip. For instance, I don’t “only” have a problem with Total Depravity but also would not even embrace a reformed view of what is called simply “original sin.” We have a several part youtube series on this here. “Original Sin” is the doctrine which teaches that because of Adam and Eve’s sin we are all born guilty before God and that we inherit their guilt from birth. Sometimes we may refer to this as Original Guilt. This is also called Augustinian Anthropology or Augustinian Original Sin. In other word’s everything gets pinned on Adam. I believe the bible clearly teaches we are all responsible to God for our own actions and in some part, the communal action of the Christ’s bride the church.

With Original Sin and Total Depravity come some other “ditches” that you’re going to have to figure out if you go that way…

  • The immaculate conception of Mary was created as a work around to hold up original sin (how could Jesus be sinless if Mary had Original Sin/Guilt?)

In our YouTube video ORIGINAL SIN series we addressed how Original Sin is not Biblical or Ancient.

  • The first 400 years of the Church did not believe this.
  • There is zero evidence that Judaism ever believed this. Modern Messianic Jews do not believe this.
  • The Eastern Orthodox church along with some Protestant denominations never adopted this view (Anabaptist and some Arminian Methodists and some Wesleyans).
  • Augustine was the inventor of this doctrine in the 5th century and much of it was due to his importation of his pagan background into Christianity and lack of the knowledge of the Greek language.

NONE OF THESE EARLY CHURCH FATHERS AFFIRMED THIS: Clement, the Didache, Athanasius, Irenaeus, Ignatius, or Justin Martyr

Augustine and Original Sin -The doctrine came into the church through Augustine of Hippo (396-440 CE) and the doctrine was originally called Concupiscence. 

  • Augustine could only read Latin, not Greek, or Hebrew.
  • Augustine came to original sin by reading Romans 5:12 in a bad Latin translation.
  • The original Greek would read: “Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death came through sin, and so death spread to all because all have sinned”
  • Yet his Latin translation said, “all have sinned in Him (Adam)”. Where the Greek says that death has spread to all because all (each) have sinned.  

Concupiscence

  • Concupiscence, according to Augustine, relates to Adam’s sin being transferred through sexual reproduction.
  • Its root definition is a base sexual desire. We get our word concubine from this.
  • He believed that through this all men are born with their will, body, and mind corrupt, and this is transmitted sexually. They inherited the sin through the sexual act leading to birth.
  • He taught that Jesus had to be born of a virgin because he connected this to the sexual act. Therefore, the virgin birth spared Jesus from a sinful nature.
    • I affirm the virgin birth but Isaiah said this is a “SIGN” and has nothing to do with original sin.
    • God’s first command to humans to be fruitful and multiply. If sex is in itself a sinful act as reformed theology says than God would be commanding humans to sin.
  • We also get the doctrine of infant depravity from this, and Pastors today even keep this bad doctrine going:
    • John MacArthur said, “At no point is a man’s depravity more manifest than in the procreative act…by what he creates. Whatever comes from the loins of man is wicked.”
    • Augustine of Hippo said, “The only innocent feature in babies is the weakness of their frames; the minds of infants are far from innocent.”
  • INFANT BAPTISM – babies began being baptized to wash away the guilt of original sin

Critical Race Theory

If Original sin is true and sin is transferrable and imputable no Christian should have an issue with Critical Race Theory which states that you are guilty of the original sins of America (Racism and slavery) even though you were not born yet and had no choice in your race. Yet CRT says that those born in certain demographics must atone for the sins of previous generations and they are just as guilty as the original offenders.

  • This is the same logic as the Doctrine of Original Sin in the Bible so if one affirms Original Sin you should also affirm CRT as it follows the same logic (yet I don’t know of any Reformed church that would align with CRT.)

Pro Life (Abortion issue)

In Original Sin even children are born guilty and under the wrath of God. Most Christians (reformed or not) are against abortion and are Pro-Life. But according to Original Sin God’s hatred is against these babies at birth (possibly unless or until baptized). His Grace can’t cover or won’t them or anyone else. We often talk about babies being innocent but according to original sin they are actually guilty and worthy of death according to this theology. The reformed disconnect then, is that if you believe babies are born as evil or against God, then ending their fetal life doesn’t pose as many problems for you (which is a problem.)

My first and last paragraph hit largely on this, but put simply, reformed theology says man is incapable of living as consumed by freedom, redemption, reconciliation, and joy in living for Jesus in their sanctification journey on this earth. It is a very limited view of Jesus’ work imo, they are looking largely for sanctification to in the life to come, which is often referred to as escapism.  Calvin’s theology begins with the doctrine of “Total Depravity,” this idea of “original sin” is a theology of man and natively foreign to Scripture. Instead, Scripture teaches that sin is the result of willful disobedience to God (Hebrews 10:26; 1 John 3:4). Calvinism allows man to say, “Sin is not my fault. It is my ‘sinful nature.’” However, Scripture teaches that sin is our fault. Scripture teaches that man has freewill and is able to choose whom he will serve (Joshua 24:15) and that this devotion is what leads to intimacy with the father. Receive life and never turn back! Every opportunity can be a decision to honor the Lord with your heart mind and Nephesh.

CALVINISM & ARMINIASM

Now let’s be clear about something. All Christians believe in God’s sovereignty, providence, and the biblical term predestination. These are not concepts unique to Calvinism. Calvinism is a particular interpretation of them. There are obviously other interpretations, such as myself and the free will church. Armenians, for example, also believe in God’s sovereignty, providence and predestination. But they have a different interpretation of these biblical concepts than Calvinism’s. Arminian Theology and Calvinism share many similarities that I would oppose. The spiritual danger of TULIP Calvinism is in believing that God is not loving enough, not good enough, to save all. Do you really think that God’s character would allow himself having the ability to choose who will and won’t be saved, that it has nothing to do with Free will? Could I love a God who could rescue everyone but chose not to? Typical Armenians don’t believe that God is powerful enough, or sovereign enough, to save all. TULIP Calvinists don’t believe that God is good enough, or loving enough, to save all. Both are problems that I cannot “assume”take on or assume” in my understanding of God.

I Am a Christian

John Calvin was a man. Christians follow Jesus, isn’t a doctrine named after a man rival to the basic idea of following Jesus? Paul admonished the church in Corinth for following men, when they were saying, “I follow Paul” or, “I follow Apollos” (1 Corinthians 1:12; 3:4). Even if I agreed with Calvin on every theological point, which I do not, I still could not describe myself as a “Calvinist” because I want to follow Christ, and Him alone (to use their own words!) Similar to what Paul asked the Corinthians (1 Corinthians 1:13), I would ask those who are Calvinists, “Was [Calvin] crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of [Calvin]? I have a similar hangup to following “Calvin” as I would to a church that elevates the pastor to nearly “god” status. There isn’t a place for it in a Jesus only Theology.

The Church Was Predestined & WHY PRAY

“Predestined” is the Biblical word proorizó and takes on an idea of predetermination or something that is marked out beforehand. It is used in the New Testament six times in Acts 4:28, Romans 8:29&30, I Corinthians 2:7, and Ephesians 1:5&11 and every time the text doesn’t give us many clues as to exactly what it really means. Hermeneutically when this happens we need to seek what the rest of the bible and other similar words may have to say on the subject and perhaps even take a look at what the intended audience understood the text to have meant (such as extra biblical sources which were commentaries of the day). In this case, luckily the Old Testament is our “torah” for the New and has several allusions to what happened with God’s intentions at the beginning. Psalm 139:16 gives us more but is also one of the Calvinist proof texts, so let’s see what it says. I often find that most of reformed theology is based on English and Latin translations, not the language of the original manuscripts. Unfortunately, a “simple reading of the English” often doesn’t convey the best image of the original language. Perhaps our modern day or classic (unfortunately reformed) understanding of predestination needs to be adjusted. Does God know everything you will do before you are born, before you make a single choice?  Does He know all men’s choices from eternity past? Does he actually cause every little thing that happens?  And if He does (which is what Calvinism believes), and He never needs self-adjustment, then in what sense can we claim that we have free will—or, for that matter, how could anyone, including God, ever hold us accountable for any of our actions if they are all predestined? I could write 10 pages on this one.

In this case (as with most), the original language in my opinion settles the dispute in all the passages that I know of, nut lets take a hard look at the one the Calvinist community tends to emphasize. The literal Hebrew is, “in Your book all of them written the days formed [when] none of them.”  The NASB reads, “the days that were ordained for me,” the words “for me” do not appear in Hebrew they are inserted into the English translation. Was this just simply trying to make it read better or is this inserted theology? I would say the later.

The first verb is a Ni’fal imperfect, usually designating an incomplete or reflexive passive voice.  In other words, the writing isn’t finished. It’s still going on. That’s quite a bit different than the idea that it is all written in the book before you were born. This is just basic Hebrew, nothing complex. Thats one reason why any traditional Jew thinks the reformed idea of predestination is preposterous.

The second verb (“ordained”) also betrays theological bent (it isn’t an acceptable interpretation by any law of hermeneutic that I know of.)  The verb is a Pu’al perfect, that is, an intensive completed action.  We know the root, yāṣar, but it takes a theological assumption (you have to want to go this way to align with other preconceived doctrine – again theological gymnastics) to translate it as “ordained.” The basic meaning of this root is “to form,” “to fashion” in synonymous parallelism with bārāʾ “create.” It describes the function of the divine Potter forming man and beasts from the dust of the earth (Gen 2:7–8, 19). It occurs in association with bārāʾ “create” and ʿāśâ “make” in passages that refer to the creation of the universe (Isa 45:18), the earth itself (Jer 33:2), and the natural phenomena (Amos 4:13; Ps 95:5). See also Ps 33:15; 74:17; 94:9; Jer 10:16; 51:19; Zech 12:1). Most of this can be found in the Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament, one of my all-time favorite references and a great example that not everything that comes from seemingly reformed organizations is reformed, (i.e. Moody Press). (R. L. Harris, G. L. Archer, Jr. & B. K. Waltke, Ed.) (electronic ed.) (396). Chicago: Moody Press.)

The word also occurs in the sense of God’s framing or devising something in his mind. It is used of his preordained purposes (II Kgs 19:25; Isa 37:26; 46:11; Ps 139:16) as well as his current plans (Jer 18:11).

If the prepositional phrase, “for me,” isn’t in the original text, then how could this verse be enlisted as a proof of God’s foreordination of all human choices?  Why couldn’t it simply be read that God knows what He plans to do before any human days are numbered? The translator’s addition of “for me” alters that entire direction of the text. I’ll get to the New Testament but let me first address something that connects here.

PRAYER: We see many times in the Bible that God in his omniscience can change his directions and does. (Moses pleading with God not to destroy Israel, Abraham saving Lot, Jonah and Ninevah etc…) His nature doesn’t change but His actions may which is ironically what make Him truly omnipotent. He is influenced by the very heart of man. His ability to adapt to the pleads of humanity is essentially His response to our devotion to Him in prayer. Predestination by Biblical definition seems to best mean there is an overall plan and God is dynamic enough to accomplish that plan despite the course of action and free will through his church (and perhaps individuals).

In other words, if you prescribe to Calvinism, why pray? If you believe God is immovable in every way, then why would you pray in terms of supplication? Yet we know the Bible speaks over and over of the ability to “ask God.” IF YOU TRULY BELIEVE IN PRAYER (at least the facets of supplicational prayer), IT IS GOING TO BE HARD TO BE A CALVINIST!

But lets get back to the Calvinistic idea of predestination. In this way of thinking, every individual has been predestined for salvation or condemnation. Man has nothing to do with receiving salvation; it is completely up to God whether an individual spends eternity in heaven or whatever your view of hell might be. It is basically a cosmic lottery! In the first chapter of Ephesians and the eighth chapter of Romans, Paul speaks of the idea of being “predestined.” Thus, the idea of predestination is a biblical concept. However, as I argue above, Calvin has confused the biblical definition. Paul wrote that God chose “before the foundation of the world” (Ephesians 1:4) to save a group of people (the church). Nowhere in Scripture do we read the Calvinistic idea that individuals were predestined for salvation or condemnation. Paul wrote, “he predestined us” (1:5) and, “we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined” (1:11). Concerning predestination, Paul always speaks in the plural (a group), not singular (an individual). Second, if grace were “irresistible” it would make evangelism unnecessary. Why would missionaries need to go into all the world and preach the gospel (Matthew 28:19-20; Mark 16:15-16), if it was God who irresistibly and miraculously converted men? Why would Paul say, “I have become all things to all people, that by all means I might save some” (1 Corinthians 9:22). If Paul’s preaching and example had nothing to do with the conversion of souls, someone ought to have told Paul that!

Christians Can Fall From Grace  

The Calvinists teach the doctrine of “Once Saved Always Saved.” To me, it seems that by simply logically considering the mass amounts of individuals that have seemingly met the biblical description of “one that is saved” yet later meet the description of one who isn’t, is overwhelming. The idea that if someone truly becomes a Christian, it is impossible for him to fall from grace seems nearly erroneous in real life, how could that possibly be? Yet, if you were to ask any Calvinist, “Can a person fall from grace?” Surely, the Calvinist would answer with a resounding, “No! There is no way a person can fall from grace.” Which baffles me, in light simple scriptures such as Galatians 5:4, “You are severed from Christ, you who would be justified by the law; you have fallen away from grace.” Jesus Himself taught that one could fall from grace, “If anyone does not abide in me he is thrown away like a branch and withers; and the branches are gathered, thrown into the fire, and burned” (John 15:6). Seems really cut and dry, if you are wrestling with this subject your real wrestling match is with the doctrine of Calvinism not the Bible!

If you take a once saved always saved view in light of the seemingly loads of people that leave the faith you have two options. Either God’s tractor beam miraculously draws them back to faith at some point before judgment. This could be entertained by an “apostle’s creed” understanding that Jesus while in the grave preached to degenerates giving them a final opportunity to accept Him. Perhaps this is a foreshadow to the New Covenant as well; but the difference is they didn’t have Jesus in the OT and in the NT we do. The other way this could work in a Calvinistic view is taking a higher level of the definition of salvation. I routinely say Judging salvation isn’t a line we should be drawing, that is for God and God alone. But that also would possibly address this matter. For instance, Jesus calls his followers all to become disciples and we get the idea that only about 70 of them existed at His death. This is defining a disciple by those that left everything at the beach (family included) and fully followed him. By this thinking, few will be saved, but it might settle the dispute of how some claim to be saved and fall away. In some reformed circles this influences theology that continually questions your salvation leading to multiple altar calls and baptisms, revivals and more. The are you “sure you are sure” way of thinking.

DRAWING

Calvinists love to talk about God drawing people to Him in defense of predestination. I affirm that Christ draws people to Him through His spirit, but some clearly refuse it. The Father’s “drawing” out of the world’s bondage by deliverance (which leads to salvation) and the devil’s stealing (which leads to damnation) are cosmic factors that work in conjunction with, but not in control of, the human volition. In other words, if a human heart is willing to submit, the Father will lead them to a saving faith relationship with Christ. The Father “draws” people (or not) in response to their hearts. Sometimes it seems like this is a continual process and sometimes the scripture seems to imply a limited window. It comes back to the problem of reformed theology and free will; reform theology essentially believes that no one truly makes their own decisions, that every decision was made for you by a supreme being. No one can refuse something that wasn’t ever offered to them.

IT (CALVINISM) IMPEDES DEEPER DISCIPLESHIP

If I am predetermined from the beginning, i.e.. part of the cosmic lottery, essentially a robot made to follow God or not, and nothing I think or will matters, (in fact, logically to this regard I am not really capable of even choosing…) Then why would I try to be a disciple? Yet Jesus frames discipleship as the pre-imminent call or reason to follow him. He continually asks us to make this choice to “FOLLOW HIM.” Calvinism minimizes the need to shepherd and disciple. This seems against Jesus’ teachings not in alignment with Jesus and His calling of us.

IN CONCLUSION

Greg Boyd really jumps into this in a reaction to a “hard to read it’s so bad” John Piper article.

  • Calvinism therefore teaches that God SPECIFICALLY WILLS every evil event in history as well as each person who will suffer eternally in hell (ETC.)
  • Calvinism teaches that God ordains every single evil thing that people do IN SUCH A WAY that God is all-holy for ordaining these evil acts while the people who do the evil acts God ordained them to do are sinful for doing them. This is the classic problem with evil.
  • Calvinism teaches that God has a “sovereign will” that ordains and delights in evil and a “moral will” that is revolted by the evil his “sovereign will” ordains. This is why I and others have claimed that God’s “moral will” must hate God’s “sovereign will” if Calvinism is in fact true.

Calvinism seems contrary to the nature of God and his plan for us. It seems rival, not in unison with God’s plan of sanctification offered to all who choose to enter into this allegiant relationship. Where does this leave you? Joshua asked the “over and over again” depraved Israelites to make a choice. Are you going to live in freedom or be stuck in your old ways? “Choose today” he said. God continues to obliterate the lines of disunity created by the severing what sin has caused. Calvinists want to redraw these lines.

Choosing to be stuck in your depravity is a choice that shows disunity resulting from the selfish, sinful choices freely chosen by man and not given to you by God. This “crutch” has been claimed as an excuse and perhaps the main issue for cultural and religious divisions since Eden. The challenge of Jesus’ teachings came to those who believed in the righteousness of their own spiritual heritage, that they can bear the Image of God and live in hope, reconciliation and freedom from their past, they are recreated holy ones and live in the power and Spirit of Jesus Himself.

I get that living this way was likely easier in the first century as a believer that was immersed in the “leave it at the beach” definition and living in a “circle the wagons” Jesus community. But the fact is the Amercian way of working 40 hours a week and acceptance of worldly bondage hasn’t changed the words of Jesus or the Bible. Have the ways of the world caused you to be in a continual spiritual dismal seemingly needing to be “rescued” over and over again? We often are what we allow, make more Godly decisions and choose to be more aligned with Jesus than the ways of this world.

The intrinsic beauty of any relationship is found in the heartfelt decision of a person in their nephesh to choose to be invested in that “Jesus” relationship. Of all the beauty found in the Garden of Eden, the choice Adam had to choose God and God to choose Adam is the pinnacle of the symphonic relationship offered to humanity. God made a choice to create mankind, God made a choice to create a space for mankind to exist and thrive, and God created us to have the meaning of our existence found in relationship to Him, but God in confidence of His own character allows the beauty of choice to be offered to His most prized creation. Even though Adam made the choice to allow sin to creep in, God also had an immediate plan for Adam and all of us to rejoin Him in the Edenic way of life. God offers this way of life 6000 years ago, He offered it to Israel, He offered in through Jesus and still offers it in modern worldly culture.

Perhaps I am conflating the process of sanctification and a Calvinist’s emphasis on Total depravity. Some Calvinists have found better definitions and better views. Within any paradigm there are good views and poor views and much of this article is taking face with the “more difficult” views of Calvinism. You can’t put everyone’s theology in the same box. I also would give some time to understanding that Calvinism could be correct in the eyes of the Lord. No one knows. I am waiting for the heavenly Mars Hill moment when all truth is given. Until then, as always; I and the crew at Expedition 44 have sought to best help you understand an exegetical approach to interpreting what God has for us.

That said, I will hold to my convictions that any of the points of Calvinism stain the gift and beauty of what Jesus offers freely to us in complete abundance. It also deeply affects our purpose for existing, working, and even our relationships with others. The spiritual implications of the death of Christ and his resurrection from the tomb sent an earthquake experienced not only on Earth, but in the spiritual realm through which humanity now has an opportunity to receive empowerment and restoration found deep in the fibers of their being. The covenant faithfulness God has been after has now been exemplified and found in Jesus Christ as a living example to humanity of the life and relationships were created for. We are living sacrifices whose very nature is not the embodiment of death, but life. We are the image of life in Jesus to its fullest!

If we believe God’s heart for humanity is that everyone come to repentance (2 Peter 3:9) it will never come from guilt, shame, or condemnation, (John 3:17), but from a people saturated with the same irresistible character traits of God himself. The ones who create life where there was death, the ones who foster peace where there is chaos, the ones who grow and build and create beauty.

God didn’t need mankind to continue what He created in the garden, but offered man an opportunity to partner with Him, devoted to His purposes. This was an incredible gift offered to Adam and that same gift is offered to us today through the blood of Jesus Christ. That’s a life worth living and a far cry from the ugliness and depravity of mankind depicted in Calvinism. Make a choice today to receive the full extent of liberation offered to you as a redeemed child of the Kingdom of God. Claim and live to the fullest image of Jesus here and now and to the glory of what is to come!

SPECIAL THANKS TO THOSE WHO CONTRIBUTED TO THIS ARTICLE: Dr. Matt Mouzakis, Dr. Steve Cassell, Dr. David Lunow, & Paul Lazzaroni

SOME BETTER RESOURCES:

https://soteriology101.com/ I like Flowers as he does a great job of refuting Calvinism but he is a provisionist which means he still affirms PSA and eternal security which I do not agree with, but still love so much about what my brother teaches.

CHOSEN BUT FREE: A Balanced View of God’s Sovereignty and Free Will 
(Third Edition, Book) by Norman Geisler

“What Love is This? Calvinism’s Misrepresentation of God” by Dave Hunt

https://www.youtube.com/@IdolKiller

Comments are closed.