What is the Calvinist-Arminian Debate and Why Should I Care?

The “Calvinist-Arminian Debate” is the common name used to describe a particular dispute in the area of Christian soteriology. “Soteriology” is the area of theology that addresses salvation and how it is obtained. In this case, it relates to how one comes to believe the Gospel, what human will is capable of, what God’s role is in this, and whether we could lose our salvation. It is primarily a Protestant debate, but many of the same questions can be entertained between Protestants, Catholics, and the Easter Orthodox.

Some Very Brief Background

The names in this debate derive from the teachings of John Calvin (1509–1564) and Jacobus Arminius (1560–1609), but the ideas expressed by the two were neither unique nor original to them. Augustine (354-430) was one of the earliest theologians to make an explicit case for what Calvin later systematized. However, Calvin was very much in the mainstream of the Protestant Reformation with these views, and was preceded by those like Martin Luther and Ulrich Zwingli. The fact that the Reformers had so much in common, particularly in regard to the subject of this debate, is one reason why we often refer to Calvin’s theology as “Reformed Theology.”

Arminius was schooled in the Calvinist tradition, but he took issue with certain points of the theology. His beliefs held some similarities to various semi-Pelagians who had come before him. Pelagianism was a heresy during Augustine’s time, to which he spent much time responding. It held that man was free of the taint of original sin and had the potential to be obedient to God’s laws and earn salvation apart from the work of Christ. Those who came to be called “semi-Pelagians” did not affirm this “works-based” salvation, but believed that we at least had the unaided ability to respond to God’s offer of salvation.

After Arminius’ death, his followers (the Remonstrants) actively pressed 5 distinct objections to Calvinism, and sought a formal conference to discuss them.  The response to these points by the mainstream Reformed churches came to be known as the “5 Points of Calvinism.”  The history of the spread or suppression of the Arminians vs Calvinists in Europe and the British Isles is as complicated as it is for Protestantism vs Catholicism, and for similar reasons of both secular and church politics.  The most notable ideological descendants of Arminianism are the Methodists, though much of the modern Protestant church has shed its more Calvinist leanings and holds to some mixture of the two views.  For instance, the majority of modern Baptists hold to less than 5 of the points of Calvinism, and some have called them “Calminians” in jest because of it.

What is the Debate?

The debate is sometimes described as being about “election,” “predestination,” “free will,” or “God’s sovereignty.”  The question of God’s sovereignty and predestination in all of history is sometimes in focus, but in general, though, this debate centers on the Five Points of Calvinism as it relates to our salvation.  These points have often been expressed as “The TULIP,” because the points can be represented in the following acrostic.

1. Total Depravity — This does not mean that we are as bad as it’s possible to be; this means that we have a fallen nature that affects all aspects of our being, including our will.
2. Unconditional Election — This means that God’s election/choosing of believers is at his own pleasure, and not conditioned upon some merit or work of the person.
3. Limited Atonement — This means that Christ’s work on the cross applies only to those who do or will believe.  He did not die in a general sense for all people regardless of their response to the gift of salvation.
4. Irresistible Grace — This means that for those whom God has elected, He will bring them to faith without fail.  The work of the Holy Spirit in their lives cannot, ultimately, be resisted.
5. Perseverance of the Saints — This means that the truly elect will persevere in belief until the end.  They cannot lose their salvation given that it is God who calls and sustains them, rather than mere human decision.

Full Arminians take exception with all of these points.  Point number one may, however, be affirmed with qualifications.  For instance, Methodists believe in the idea of “prevenient grace.”  They affirm that the Fall impacted our spiritual state, but believe that God has done a universal work of grace to neutralize that problem.

Many Protestants who fall somewhere in the middle commonly accept the last point (as some say, “once saved, always saved”), and may go so far as to accept all but one other point.  The second and fourth points seem to be the main stumbling blocks.  They might accept that the Holy Spirit is required to bring us to faith, but believe that God makes the attempt with all people (not just an elect group), and that we can ultimately resist the wooing of the Spirit.

Calvinists respond by claiming that all of these points are part of a coherent set of doctrines, and that, for instance, believing you cannot lose your salvation does not make sense if it is your own free will (rather than God) which has secured it in the first place.

There is often great confusion over exactly what this debate entails.  This is because the people involved in the debate may be neither fully Arminian nor fully Calvinist, and they may be focused on only one or another aspect of the theology.  The person who rejects a given point is often characterized as taking the “Arminian” position, even if he is not truly Arminian.

In my experience, the majority view among Protestant churches is that the work of the Holy Spirit is a necessary part of what brings us to faith.  The main subject of debate is then on the questions: Does God send the Spirit to “try” to convert everyone, and are we able to resist the Spirit to the very end?  In the following sections I will focus on these particular questions, and, for lack of a better way to characterize the two views, I will label the opposing views as Arminian and Calvinist (or Reformed).

Brief Justifications

At this point I’d like to give just a preview of the kinds of arguments used to support each of the views. This will be just a taste, as I don’t intend to get into counter-responses or my own commentary on the defenses.  I will be as objective as I can with these justifications.

The Arminian view

• Scripture says Christ died for all, and wants all to be saved, and grieves that any should be lost.
• The fact that God commands us to believe and be obedient suggests that it is in our power to do so.
• Election is not a matter of God’s choosing of who will and will not believe, but that God has “elected” to use Christ, and our faith in Him, as the means of our salvation.  The “elect” are those who do, in fact, come to believe.
• There is no denial that God “predestines,” but it is based upon God’s foreknowledge of who will and will not become believers.
• Calvinism seems to deny free will, or at least violates man’s free will.  The preservation of man’s free will is considered a fundamental good.
• Calvinism seems to make God out to be the author of evil, if our salvation and sinful nature is ultimately held in God’s hands.
• Calvinism appears to make God’s mercy arbitrary, and questions His justice.
• Why should a Calvinist evangelize if it is God who is doing all the work?

The Calvinist view

• The biblical language of election, choosing, and predestination is taken at face-value.
• A Calvinist interpretation of scripture is a more encompassing interpretive lens than an Arminian one.
• Any number of seemingly explicit statements in scripture support the view. (See endnotes)
• The Bible, in general, is a story about what God has done with (and in spite of) weak and rebellious people, not of God’s response to virtuous men who seek Him.
• Salvation according to the act of our own will is seen as a type of works-based salvation, and it offers grounds for boasting (e.g., “I was smart enough to see the truth, but Joe wasn’t”).
• Free will is affirmed, but man’s will is impaired such that he does not desire to come to God.  The biblical characterization of our condition is severe and uses terms like “bondage,” “dead,” “deaf,” and “blind.”
• God does not just force belief, He heals our broken will, changes our heart of stone, and illuminates the truth such that we naturally make the right response of our own free will.
• The observation of human nature demonstrates our bias, self-focus, and rebellion against truth.

What Difference Does it Make?

Some have shrugged this debate off as an unsolvable mystery or as an irrelevant academic exercise.  Whether or not we care or realize it, though, it does indirectly impact many areas of our thinking.  Even those who take a position on this, when the subject happens to come up, can sometimes unconsciously speak and pray in contradictory ways.  Here are some of the areas I’ve noticed it coming up either in my thinking, in conversation with others, or in watching people practice Christianity.  These things can either surface the debate, or the two views can be used as different lenses with which to understand these questions.

• How we pray for the salvation of others
  • What is it that we want to happen?
  • What do we want God to do to them?
• How we view unbelievers
  • Why do they not believe?
  • What does it mean if we say, “there but for the grace of God go I”?
  • Is there anything essentially different about us from any given unbeliever?
• How we view ourselves and other Christians
  • Why did we come to believe?
  • At what point were we actually believers?
  • Can a Christian “backslide” and what does that mean?
  • Can a true Christian leave the faith and then later come back?
• How we evangelize
  • Does the belief of others depend upon our eloquence?
  • What does it mean to have “ears to hear”?
  • Will there be any in hell that can say, “if only you had told me” or “if only you had explained it better”?
• How we do apologetics
  • Who is it for and what are we trying to accomplish?
  • How do we answer questions like,
    • What about the un-evangelized?
    • If there is a God, why so much unbelief?
    • Why is there evil and suffering?
    • Will it be possible to sin in heaven?
• How we interpret scripture
  • What should we do with passages that seem to speak directly to this debate?
  • Are there alternate ways to handle other passages in light of the debate?
    • What is happening when God “hardens Pharaoh’s heart”?
    • What happened to Paul on the Damascus road, and what about Jeremiah and John the Baptist, who were chosen for ministry from birth?
    • Who and where are we in the Parable of the Seed & Sower, and what is God doing?
• How we do church
  • Should we have alter calls?
  • What is happening at baptism and when should we baptize?
  • How do we treat the congregation on Sunday: as a mission field or as disciples?
• Who God is
  • What does He know?
  • Does human will put any limitations on Him?
  • What is the causal relationship between our prayers and His actions?
  • Where is God when bad things happen?

---

Endnotes

It might be instructive to list a sampling of the biblical references in support of Calvinism, since these often become the focal point in the debate.

• Acts 13:48 — “When the Gentiles heard this, they began rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord; and as many as had been appointed to eternal life believed.”
• Acts 11:18 & 2 Tim 2:25 — both speak of God “granting repentance”
• Acts 16:14 — “The Lord opened [Lydia’s] heart to respond to Paul’s message.”
• John 1:12 — “But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name, who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.”
• John 6:44 — “No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day.”
• John 6:37 — “All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out.”
• John 15:16 — “You did not choose Me but I chose you, and appointed you that you would go and bear fruit, and that your fruit would remain, so that whatever you ask of the Father in My name He may give to you.”
• Romans 8:29 — “For those whom he chose beforehand he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified.”
• Romans 9:16 — “So then it does not depend on the man who wills or the man who runs, but on God who has mercy.”
• Ephesians 1:3 — “Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places, even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. In love he predestined us for adoption as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will”
• Ephesians 1:11 — “In Him also we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to His purpose who works all things after the counsel of His will”
• Ephesians 2:8 — “For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God”
• 2 Timothy 1:9 — “[God] has saved us and called us with a holy calling, not according to our works, but according to His own purpose and grace which was granted us in Christ Jesus from all eternity”