Calvinism is one of the most controversial theologies in the modern Protestant era. Many pastors and theologians don’t even touch it, and those that do often feel very strongly about their side, fueling further division. Another unfortunate aspect, is that Calvinism seems to creep into many seminaries and Christian higher learning, often creating a perceived division amongst Christian authority figures, and the layman. It’s for these reasons that I have felt not just a desire, but a compulsion to write this blog, despite the daunting nature of the task. My hope is that this offers some clarity, peace, and understanding to those who may believe one side or the other, but aren’t sure they know enough about it to feel confident.
In order to stay accessible, I will be splitting up this blog up into several sections, with this overview explaining the top-level arguments, and expanded sub-blogs on the topics that call for more steelmanning or exposition. If any of what I’m writing raises alarm bells or makes you bristle, I encourage you to click on the links and I’ll have much more room in the sub-blogs to flesh out everything I’m saying.
What is Calvinism?
For those who may be new to the concept, Calvinism is most commonly summed up in the acronym T.U.L.I.P. which stands for Total Depravity, Unconditional Election, Limited Atonement, Irresistible Grace, and Perseverance of the Saints. In a nutshell it’s the belief that you were too sinful to be able to choose God or make a righteous decision (Total Depravity), so God chose you. God chose you (and all other Christians) before time and before you could do anything good or evil (Unconditional Election), which means He actively chose NOT to include everyone else, which means He only died for those He chose (Limited Atonement). It had nothing to do with your own free will, because once you’re chosen, you can’t resist God (Irresistible Grace). You also can’t lose your salvation, because you were “elected” and can’t become “unelected” (Perseverance of the Saints).
Calvinism is nothing new. Perhaps the 16th century TULIP version that John Calvin came up with would have a few differentiating factors, but this idea that mankind is a passenger to his own fate predates the New Testament itself and was a well-established belief amongst the prevailing theologies at the time:
The Greeks viewed fate as a powerful force governed by the Moirae, the three Fates who determined the destinies of both mortals and gods (you may recognize them by the scene in Hercules the cartoon when they tried to cut Hercules string of life). The Romans adopted and adapted the Greek concept of fate, calling it Fatum. To them, Fatum was inescapable, often revealed through divination.
You would expect then, that the early church fathers would have confronted this idea head-on. If they were in agreement on the topic (i.e. “God decides our salvation/fate”) then it would have been an easy connecting point for the early church, and I would expect a Mars Hill style conversation (I.e. “I know the real decider of fate: the unknown God you pray to”). But if they were in disagreement, it would have been pushed back on heavily so as not to allow Greek and Roman theology to distort the church.
So what do we get? In all of the known writings from all of the church fathers, we have 350 years (up until Augustine in 411) of unity on the topic:
“This expression [of our Lord], ‘How often would I have gathered thy children together, and thou wouldest not,’ reveals the ancient law of human liberty. God made man a free agent from the beginning, with his own power to obey God voluntarily, not by compulsion” — Irenaeus, circa 178 AD
“Neither do we affirm that it is by fate that men do what they do, or suffer what they suffer; but that each man by free choice acts rightly or sinfully… If it were fated, no one could ever turn from evil to good.” — Justin Martyr, circa 100-165 AD
“Those [pagans] who decide that man does not have free will, but say that he is governed by the unavoidable necessities of fate, are guilty of impiety toward God Himself, making Him out to be the cause and author of human evils.” — Methodius circa 260–312 AD
“This is also clearly defined in the teaching of the church, that every rational soul has free will and volition….we are not forced by any necessity to act either rightly or wrongly.” — Origen of Alexandria (c. 185–254 AD)
The early church disagreed with each other on the 1,000 year reign, the eucharist, circumcision, and the Trinity, but despite the fact that the idea that your life was pre-ordained was a very popular gnostic belief at the time, every documented church father for the first 350 years…from Irenaeus, to Justin Martyr, to Polycarp (a disciple of John himself), to Tertullian…all believed salvation and hell were the result of man’s free-will choice. Sure, some might cite vague references to election (Clement’s “chosen of God”), but these reflect God’s foreknowledge or corporate calling—never in the context of salvation, and never without man’s free-will involvement.
Then Augustine came onto the scene and broke from 350 years of established church beliefs, influencing the Western church from then all the way up until now. Surprising? Here’s how it all happened:
So how is it that the entire early church, including disciples of John himself, read Ephesians 1, and Romans 9, and John 17, and none of them came to the conclusion that our salvation is predetermined? I think speaking the same language and living in the same culture as Paul made many of these scriptures less confusing for them, and it’s my hope that I can make it less confusing for you as well.
The Scriptures
Every time I bring up this argument to a Calvinist, I get the same response: “But what about those black and white verses in the Bible talking about being predestined?”. I’m going to go through each of these confusing verses and chapters and hopefully shed a little more light on who, and what, Paul is talking about.
Ephesians 1
Why did Calvin insist there was a long lost epistle written to the Ephesians before this letter, despite having zero historical evidence or reference? Because connecting Ephesians 3 makes it very difficult to defend Calvinism.
Click here for a full explanation of Ephesians 1
Romans 8:29
Did you know that Origen had a full commentary on this chapter a mere 200 years after it was written, and was adamant that Paul never suggested that God pre-ordains salvation?
Click here for a deep dive into one of the most misunderstood verses in the bible
Romans 9
This chapter is the most dense and requires the most explanation, so I recommend you follow the link below for a more references, verses, and context.
Click here for a sub-blog on more Romans verses and Calvinist counterarguments.
John 17
The reason I decided to use John 17, is because I can not only address the confusion surrounding this chapter, but clear up a lot of the confusion in the Gospels where Jesus alludes to God “giving believers to Him” (i.e. Matthew 11:27, Luke 10:22, John 6:37-39, John 10:29, and this chapter itself)
First, let’s consider the order of salvation from a Calvinist, and non-Calvinist perspective:
Calvinist
- God chooses you before the foundations of the world
- At some point, because you were chosen, you are irresistibly woo’d to accept God
- Once you accept your need for God, Jesus’ sacrifice cleanses you and gives you new life, and you’ll “never be snatched from His hand” — John 10:29
Non-Calvinist
- You recognize your own sinful state and desire repentance, either through someone sharing, or your own realization (God “knocking”)
- God “judges your heart” and brings you to Jesus
- Once you accept your need for God, Jesus’ sacrifice cleanses you and gives you new life, and you’ll “never be snatched from His hand” — John 10:29 (some believers don’t believe in “once saved, always saved”, so this might leave room for someone who willingly walks out of God’s hand, but I digress)
We share the 3rd step. Using that as context, let’s begin:
“since you have given him authority over all flesh, to give eternal life to all whom you have given him — John 17:2
And
“I have manifested your name to the people whom you gave me out of the world. Yours they were, and you gave them to me, and they have kept your word” — John 17:6
I’m failing to see where there is any controversy — the verses themselves speak to the 3rd step in both theologies: God bringing you to Jesus to be washed clean and given eternal life. The only conflict we have is WHEN God gave someone to Jesus. Calvinists say before the foundations of the world, non-Calvinists say once they were receptive to it.
Most of Jesus’ miracles involved recipients showing prior faith in God or Jesus (i.e. Matthew 8:5-13). So did God set up their already willing heart with a divine encounter with Jesus? If God did, then how does that violate free-will?
Next, here’s the verse Calvinists often quote:
“I am praying for them. I am not praying for the world but for those whom you have given me, for they are yours” — John 17:9
Calvinists argue this excludes the world from Jesus’ atonement, claiming that combining it with John 17:2 (“to give eternal life to all whom you have given him”) proves only the elect are saved and eternal life is only for a pre-chosen elect, but Jesus is clearly speaking solely to His inner circle (the disciples) here. Why? Because 3 verses later Jesus references Judas as one of them:
“I have guarded them, and not one of them has been lost except the son of destruction, that the Scripture might be fulfilled” — John 17:12
(Overlooking the fact that Judas is considered one of the ones that God gave to Jesus and was still lost…)
We have even more evidence of Jesus narrowing the prayer’s focus, because later he joins the outer circle, as well as the rest of the world into his prayer in verse 20 and 21:
“I do not ask for these only, but also for those who will believe in me through their word, that they may all be one, just as you, Father, are in me, and I in you, that they also may be in us, so that the world may believe that you have sent me” — John 17:20 — 21
Once again, a chapter that Calvinists use to validate their theology, ends up turning against them since here Jesus desires for 3 categories to hear and believe:
- The disciples
- Those who believe because of the word that the disciples shared
- The rest of the world
According to Calvinists, the “elect” would be covered in the first 2 categories, and “the rest of the world” shouldn’t have been included in this prayer. Some Calvinists might suggest that the world might believe that Jesus was the Son of God, but that doesn’t mean they are saved. However, that word “believe” (pisteuō) is the same word as the one in John 3:36: “The one who believes (pisteuō) in the Son has eternal life”.
So to summarize: the order of our salvation was always supposed to be us crying out to God, and God bringing us to Jesus to act as our High Priest on our behalf to reconcile us with God (In fact, this chapter is commonly referred to as the “High Priestly Prayer”). So Jesus mentioning those “to whom God sent” falls in line with what non-Calvinists have believed all along.
There Are a Lot of Verses That Contradict Calvinism
Ok, now that we’ve addressed the verses Calvinists use, it’s my turn. There are tons of verses that contradict Calvinism, and unlike the verses above, they are a lot more straightforward, in context, and difficult to dodge:
“For God so loved the world, that WHOSOEVER believes in Him will not perish, but have everlasting life” — John 3:16
The common Calvinist reply to this, is that the word “whosoever” here in the Greek is “pas” and “pas” in certain contexts can mean “all kinds of people” not necessarily “all people”. Now, there’s still the issue of the word ‘world’ here being ‘kosmos,’ meaning ‘the inhabitants of the earth,’ but let’s roll with their take. In that case, this verse is really a doozy:
“So then as through one trespass [Adam’s sin] there resulted condemnation for all (pas) men, even so through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all (pas) men” – Romans 5:18 (emphasis on “to”. Justification is presented TO all men, not received by all men)
If John 3:16 isn’t black and white, then this one certainly is. Calvinists must believe that the word “pas” translates to “all men” in the first part of the verse when speaking of Adam, because one of their TULIP pillars (Total Depravity) must apply to every man. But that means that “all men” must also be given the gift of justification by Jesus, which contradicts the other TULIP pillar, Limited atonement.
So Even if “pas” means “all kinds of people” in John 3:16, Romans 5:18 uses the same word in a way Calvinists can’t dodge.
I think it’s one of the most black and white verses against Calvinism in the Bible, and the more you dive into the translations and context of those words, the more you find that it simply couldn’t have been translated another way.
There are many more verses:
“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
Calvinists might claim ‘whole world’ means the elect across nations, but Revelation 7:9 (“a great multitude that no one could number, from every nation”) shows there were plenty of ways to say ‘every nation’ if he wanted—‘holos kosmos’ is deliberately broader. Calvinism forces us to bend and twist this unnaturally to limit an expression that none of the early church fathers interpreted as limited. And let’s not forget that the pagan religions at the time believed in preordained outcomes orchestrated by the gods, so would Paul really be so vague here and just expect us to go “whole world just means specifically chosen people from all parts of the world”?
How about the one Irenaeus used?
“How often would I have gathered your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you were not willing!” — Matthew 23:37
Why would Jesus have any frustration for something that was preordained and irresistible? Calvinists might say Jesus’ frustration reflects God’s sovereign will, but then the verse would need to say, “but God was not willing!”. There is no divine frustration without culpability, and there is no culpability without the freedom to make the choice.
Final Thoughts: Logical Inconsistencies
I’ll wrap this up with the logical inconsistencies and worrisome outcomes that are implicated by Calvinism. It isn’t scripture, but now that the full scriptural argument has been laid out, I felt it was appropriate to also include my own feelings and thoughts:
First, my biggest concern with this theology, is that it turns Divine Romance into Divine Coercion. Since I’m unable to even respond to God on my own volition, then my relationship with God becomes just an acknowledgment of His goodness, not a response to His kindness (“God’s kindness is meant to lead you to repentance” — Romans 2:4) and eliminating your ability to reciprocate in your relationship with God can be very damaging to your God-view.
If we’re made in God’s image to judge angels, why would we lack the free will that God and angels have, and how could we possibly judge an angelic creature?
Why does the Kingdom of God always spread at the same rate, time, and location as the missionaries who go there? Shouldn’t there be just as many Christians in random African villages as there are in the Bible Belt? If God chose the elect and it had nothing to do with any decision they may or may not make, then why is the most common reason for identifying with Christianity your place and family of origin?
Why do we need evangelism? If you’re a Calvinist, it would just be: “someone is irresistibly woo’d to tell someone about God, and that person is irresistibly woo’d to accept” — but even that goes too far, since we wouldn’t even need the evangelist. Someone could just be irresistibly woo’d to pick up a Bible. So then this verse doesn’t really make sense:
“How then will they call on him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without someone preaching? And how are they to preach unless they are sent?” — Romans 10:14
According to the Calvinist, someone should have just told Paul, “they don’t need to be preached to, and they don’t need to hear — they’re just going to be irresistibly woo’d into calling on Him”.
How can there be “weeping and gnashing of teeth” if the unsaved never had a chance? Also, it seems really dark to have a God make someone, just to damn them through no fault of their own. Try saying “God’s ways are higher than ours” to the mother who must watch her son go to hell because Jesus didn’t die for him because he wasn’t chosen.
If salvation outcomes are God-ordained, what is satan even trying to accomplish? If he has no effect on where a person ends up, then what exactly makes satan evil? Ireneaus answers that question brilliantly:
“He did not predetermine that some should be wicked and others righteous, for then He would be the author of evil, which is impossible.”
The goal was to allow this overview blog to stand on its own, but if anything is still confusing, feel free to click on the links for a further deep dive.
Hopefully this helps clarify some of those tricky parts of the Bible and can be used as a resource in the future!
