Calvinism vs. Arminianism

Have you ever gotten into a debate that made your head spin? In Christian thought there’s one topic that has caused a lot of dizziness: God’s sovereignty vs. human free will.

God’s sovereignty means that God has authority over all that he has made and that means God can do whatever he wants with it. On a human level, God is in control and his choice determines our destiny. Human freedom, on the other hand, means that we have the ability, graciously given to us by God, to accept or reject God’s will, so our choice determines our destiny. And therein lies the apparent conflict: Are we in control or is God? (I’ve already written two posts on the topic of God’s sovereignty: Is God Behind Evil? and Sovereignty and Responsibility so this one will be more of a brief historical overview.)

Calvin vs. Arminius

While Christian scholars have disagreed over the nature of God’s sovereignty and human freedom for almost two millennia, the debate erupted about five hundred years ago with John Calvin and Jacobus Arminius.

John Calvin (1509-1564) not only wrote commentaries on many books of the Bible, he also incorporated his findings into a systematic theology: Institutes of the Christian Religion. Calvin’s teaching emphasized God’s sovereignty and after his death the acronym TULIP was used to summarize his views:

• Total Depravity
• Unconditional Election
• Limited Atonement
• Irresistible Grace, and
• Perseverance of the Saints

To put that into one sentence: Sin has killed us making us unable to do anything to save ourselves or even move toward God’s offer of salvation (T) so the elect are saved by four divine means, which are applied only to them: God’s unconditional election (U), Christ’s death (L), God’s irresistible grace (I), and the power to persevere in the faith until the end (P).

Allow me to hone in on one part of the TULIP. Unconditional election means that before the beginning of time God chose which individuals would go to heaven and which individuals would go to hell. And this choice was not based on any merits in the individuals. For example, God did not use his foreknowledge to see who would accept the good news and who would reject it, then use that knowledge in his selection process. The divine pre-temporal choice was unconditioned. Some individuals are destined for heaven; others are destined for hell because God has decided. Calvin calls this “a just and blameless, but at the same time incomprehensible judgment.” He writes,

By predestination we mean the eternal decree of God, by which he determined with himself whatever he wished to happen with regard to every man. All are not created on equal terms, but some are preordained to eternal life, others to eternal damnation; and, accordingly, as each has been created for one or other of these ends, we say that he has been predestinated to life or to death. . .

We say, then, that Scripture clearly proves this much, that God by his eternal and immutable counsel determined once for all those whom it was his pleasure one day to admit to salvation, and those whom, on the other hand, it was his pleasure to doom to destruction. We maintain that this counsel, as regards the elect, is founded on his free mercy, without any respect to human worth, while those whom he dooms to destruction are excluded from access to life by a just and blameless, but at the same time incomprehensible judgment. (Calvin’s Institutes, ch. 21, sect. 5, 7)

The same divine principle applies to Adam’s fall. God ordained it “by his decree” and “arranged it.” In other words, Adam had to fall because God had decided his fate beforehand.

I again ask how it is that the fall of Adam involves so many nations with their infant children in eternal death without remedy unless that it so seemed meet to God? Here the most loquacious tongues must be dumb. The decree, I admit, is, dreadful; and yet it is impossible to deny that God foreknew what the end of man was to be before he made him, and foreknew, because he had so ordained by his decree. Should any one here inveigh against the prescience of God, he does it rashly and unadvisedly. For why, pray, should it be made a charge against the heavenly Judge, that he was not ignorant of what was to happen? Thus, if there is any just or plausible complaint, it must be directed against predestination. Nor ought it to seem absurd when I say, that God not only foresaw the fall of the first man, and in him the ruin of his posterity; but also at his own pleasure arranged it. For as it belongs to his wisdom to foreknow all future events, so it belongs to his power to rule and govern them by his hand. (Calvin’s Institutes, ch. 23, sect. 7)

(I have written more about predestination here, here, and here.)

Needless to say, non-Calvinists believe that one or more of the TULIP’s petals are disconnected from a biblical stem. For example, while Calvinists affirm that Christ died only for the elect and use Jesus’ statement as support, “The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep” (Jn. 10:11), non-Calvinists point to 1 John 2:2 which applies Christ’s death to everyone: “He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world.”

Jacobus Arminius (1560-1609) originally trained in Calvin’s teaching but came to disagree with the emphasis on God’s sovereignty. Arminius believed the Scriptures gave a greater role to human free will than Calvin allowed. But Arminius held to a strong view of total depravity, meaning we are dead in our sins and unable to move toward salvation. In addition, Arminius espoused a high view of God’s grace as essential to our salvation. So if we are enemies of God and unable to change unless God intervenes, how does our ability to accept or reject the gospel fit into the picture?

Arminius found the solution in the idea of prevenient grace. Prevenient grace is a grace that is given to everyone, granting all the power to accept the gospel. And since everyone receives the same God-given ability to accept the gospel, those who believe are not especially favored by God in comparison with those who don’t believe. Believers simply cooperated with the God-given grace given to all. The doctrine of prevenient grace enabled Arminius to hold on to the biblical doctrines of total depravity, salvation by God’s grace, and the role of the human will in accepting or rejecting the gospel. Of course, Calvinists don’t believe prevenient grace—at least in this sense—is taught in Scripture. Regarding election, Arminius rejected Calvin’s double predestination, replacing it with conditional election, whereby our election depends on our acceptance of the gospel.

Wesley vs. Whitefield

Skipping a century we come to the disagreement between John Wesley (1703-1791) and George Whitefield (1714-1770). The two prominent preachers went toe-to-toe with each other on the topic of God’s sovereignty and human free will. Wesley’s ardent Arminianism led him to preach a sermon in which he claimed Calvinism makes God worse than the devil. How so? Well, just think of the implications of double predestination.

Whitefield, a staunch Calvinist, publicly disagreed with Wesley’s sermon in a letter. But in the end, their mutual respect for each other won out as Whitefield requested that Wesley preach at his funeral. And Wesley eulogized his friend with admiration.

Calvinism and Arminianism Today

Two centuries later, the debate has not died down. Contemporary Calvinist scholars include J. I. Packer, R. C. Sproul, and John Piper. Arminian scholars of note include I. H. Marshall, Roger Olson, and Ben Witherington. These are all Bible-believing, learned scholars and insightful writers, but they have come to different conclusions on the issue of God’s sovereignty and human freedom. (For a more thorough comparison of Calvinism and Arminianism than I offer here, see Roger Olson’s post.)

Scriptural Support for Calvinism and Arminianism

Why has this debate been going on for centuries? Certain verses emphasize God’s sovereign grace, while other verses highlight human freedom. For instance, Jesus affirmed God’s sovereignty with the statement, “No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him” (Jn. 6:44), but he also pinned the blame on the human will, “you refuse to come to me that you may have life” (Jn. 5:40). (If you’re interested in getting into the biblical details of this debate, listen to the lengthy exchange between James White (Calvinist) and Michael Brown (Arminian): Part 1 and Part 2).

Other Solutions: Molinism and Open Theism

There have been other attempts, besides Calvinism and Arminianism, to solve the perplexing relationship between God’s sovereignty and human freedom. Molinism, for example, uses God’s middle knowledge as the solution. Middle knowledge means that God looked into the future and saw all that would and could happen and then used that knowledge to actualize this particular world. In that way, God remains sovereign over all that actually does happen, while for the most part, not directly interfering with human choice. In other words, God set up the circumstances of this specific world, knowing how we would respond and act in this setting. And this particular world has been designed in a way that will bring the most people to salvation in Christ. (William Lane Craig is a prominent proponent of Molinism.)

Open Theism, on the other hand, asserts that even God doesn’t know the majority of our future free decisions because they are unknowable. God’s foreknowledge is limited to what he will do and to future events that he has determined must take place, such as the death of Christ. So God cannot be blamed because he could not have known exactly how we would use our free will. (Greg Boyd espouses the Open Theistic view.)

Notice that both Molinism and Open Theism redefine God’s omniscience or God’s all-knowing ability. Molinism expands divine omniscience to all possible scenarios, while Open Theism restricts divine omniscience to “knowable” events.

The Mind of God

Essentially, the debate between Calvinism and Arminianism takes us into the mind of God in eternity past. How exactly did God make his decisions before the world began? Did God elect by looking ahead, seeing who would respond to the gospel, and then choosing to save them (Arminianism, Molinism)? Or did he elect those whom he sovereignly chose by his grace without considering how they would respond to the gospel (Calvinism)? Or does the eternal God not know how certain temporal events will turn out (Open Theism)? What do future events even look like to a God who is outside of space and time? Obviously, we don’t know because we are time-bound tiny creatures. We have a hard enough time trying to understand each other’s minds. How can we possibly understand the mind of the infinite God?

Conclusion

This debate has a long and contentious history—a history of diligent Bible interpreters seeking to correlate a large amount of biblical data and coming to different conclusions. Moreover the relationship between divine and human agency has been a deep problem in the history of human thought.

So what do you think? Who is right?

For me double predestination is a major problem for the character of God so I cannot subscribe to full Calvinism. However, I do believe Calvinists and Arminians should work together as much as possible. After all, we share the same Lord and the same good news of his life, death, and resurrection. Along these lines, I appreciate how Wesley and Whitefield showed respect to each other at the end of their lives.

Les Bridgeman

After graduating from Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary, I served as a high school Bible teacher in Asia. I enjoy traveling, writing, and playing the drums. For a deep dive into church history and the character of God, see my book Surprised by Hell.