I recently became embroiled in some online discussions that plummeted, as if predestined, toward the great Calvinism / Armenian debate abyss. While I don’t consider myself a 
representative of either camp, I found myself re-thinking the reasons I’m not a Calvinist. Here’s some of those reasons:
* * *
- No one human system perfectly codifies and articulates all Truth.
Possibly my biggest concern about Calvinism is the fervency of its proponents. (I know of several churches that have split over this issue.) There is, in my experience, a type of rigid devotion to “the system”, as if it were almost equal to Scripture. We must remember that John Calvin was a man ( a young man, at that), who developed and refined his theology over time. While it may align itself on many fronts with God’s Word, to suggest Calvinism or Reformed Theology — or any other denomination or creed — is THE summation of Scripture, is stupid.
- Calvinism presents a cold, clinical, potentially unbiblical caricature of God.
While Scripture teaches we are all in sin and under God’s wrath, it also describes His love and mercy as vast, lavish and exceedingly inclusive. Calvinism tends to emphasize the LEGAL aspect of our relationship with God, rather than the PERSONAL. Instead of broken, pitiful beings whom God is forever wooing, forever seeking to reclaim, Calvinism portrays a God Who sits in perpetual enmity with His creation and, save for those He “chooses” to regenerate, allows to pass into eternal, fiery torment.
- The abundance of Scriptural evidence for, and appeal to, human free will.
The Bible is absolutely clear about God’s foreknowledge and eternal decrees. He must exist outside of time / human history and be able to override and “steer” the actions / will of man toward His purposes, or He cannot be God. Nevertheless, Scripture also clearly teaches that our decisions matter. Whoever believes. Whoever receives. Whoever will. These are phrases often found in God’s Word. Furthermore, people are sometimes portrayed as resisting God’s work. Paul found it was “hard to kick against the goads” (Acts 26:14), i.e., resist God’s call, and Jesus wept over those who “were not willing” (Lk. 13:34 NIV) to be gathered to His side. Somehow, it appears God’s choice does not preempt free will, but neither does our will override God’s sovereignty.
- The implication that God “chooses” people to exist in perpetual torment contradicts God’s desire to see all men come to repentance.
Some would argue that God doesn’t choose people to hell, but simply passes over 
them. Granted, the belief in “double predestination” is on the “hyper” end of the Calvinistic spectrum. Nevertheless, it appears to be a logical inference. If God’s choice is the determinant of who gets saved, then it’s also the determinant in who doesn’t. So if God desires that all men be saved (I Tim. 2:4, II Pet. 3:9), and some don’t, then either God doesn’t really desire that or there are factors other than God’s will — factors that He allows — in the equation (human freedom).
- Election is viewed as unconditional and reprobation is conditional.
Calvinism asserts that God elects people unconditionally — in spite of who they are and what they’ve done. Yet, accordingly, men are damned conditionally — precisely because of who they are and what they’ve done. In other words, according to Calvinism, salvation is unconditional, damnation is not. What’s wrong with that picture?
- How can people be responsible for their choices if God determines everything they do?
Much has been made of the fatalism that can be extrapolated from Reformed presuppositions. But if God is solely responsible for our salvation then, in the end, our responses / actions don’t matter. They are scripted. (I understand that, according to this system, our actions AFTER regeneration do count, and believe there’s truth to this.) Furthermore, if you’re not “chosen” by God, repentance is futile. In fact, if you don’t desire Him, it is proof you are not chosen. In the end, if God determines everything, our choice doesn’t matter.
- Calvinism undermines evangelistic outreach.
This point, again, has been the subject of great debate. If God chooses who will be saved, then evangelism is moot. Yes, Christians will be judged by whether or not they obeyed God and preached the Gospel. But, in the end, those Whom God desires to be saved, will be saved. If, however, the souls of men hang in some type of eternal balance, evangelism takes on a whole new perspective.
* * *
Okay, it’s a first draft. There’s reams of more fluent, academic discussions of this subject. For more, from both sides, look HERE and HERE. If I’ve ruffled feathers, forgive me. These opinions have arisen through much agonizing discussion, prayer and study. I am not anti-Calvinism and, in fact, side with my Reformed brethren in many ways. At this stage of my spiritual pilgrimage, however, I lean toward the motto of the old black Baptist minister: I believes like a Calvinist, but I lives like an Armenian.
Just found your blog today and enjoyed this post on your critique of Calvinism…as a recent graduate of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville,KY (reformed in its theologythese days, through and through) I thought you did an excellent job of bringing balance (which I have been trying to find) on these issues. I was raised Wesley Methodist…became Baptist via marriage and then via conviction…but did not hear such strong teaching on Calvinism until seminary in my 50's. While I lean more with Calvin's views than any other, like you, I have not been able to swallow the whole thing. The truth is somewhere in between…
You would enjoy my son's blog, http://www.ChristianThinker.net. He is completing his dissertation for a PHD in Philosophy from Southern Bap. Theol. Seminary this May.
I also really enjoyed your analysis of Avatar. I will visit your blog again!
In Christ, Laura
Wow I am years behind this conversation, but I wanted to offer a resource that I have found helpful. Daniel Gracely has written a book about Calvinism, and I have found it very helpful. ( he addressing of the potter and the pot was quite helpful as he looked at it’s appearances in the OT. Hope this helps. His website is xcalvinist.com I think
I am disappointed that a deep thinker like you, Mike, ends your discussion with the weakest of all arguments against the Reformed faith.
The modern missionary movement began when William Carey whio ignored the church establishment and went to India never to return home. Carey was a Baptist who deeply believed in what is often labeled Calvinism.
The 1st Great Awakening in America was the direct result of God using two men (again both now labeled Calvinists), Jonathan Edwards and George Whitefield.
Charles Haddon Spurgeon gladly labeled himself a Calvinist but pastored what was the first mega-church of the modern era. He passionately preached the Gospel to all and wholly committed to missions.
Anyone ever heard of Evangelism Explosion? Millions of Christians learned the basics of witnessing to others through EE. Who wrote it and championed it? D. James Kennedy, a Presbyterian of all things.
One of the foremost young voices in America for sacrificial living and radical commitment to missions at home and abroad is David Platt of the Church at Brookhills. His book, Radical, is a NYT best seller. He is definitely a adherent of the doctrines of grace.
I have never believed the Internet is a useful forum for debating theological nuances. Trust me, I cut my writing teeth on forums that argued both sides against the other and I highly doubt many on either side was changed. But it lends nothing to the discussion to present cardboard caricatures and several have already been cut out in this current discussion.
Tim, you may consider this point weak, but it is definitely in the mix. Which is why J.I. Packer’s Evangelism and the Sovereignty of God is so important. If the inference that “Calvinism undermines evangelistic outreach” is so weak, so preposterous, and so “caricature,” why would one of the foremost theologians of the 20th century take time to write an entire book on the subject?
Since I say under Dr. Packer on several occasions I think I can speak to than pretty well. Packer is a definite Calvinist with a capitol C. Dr Packer’s premise is that it is wrong to see the sovereignty of God and the responsibility of man as at odds with on another.
Were you with him today and you asked him what causes some Christians to abandon evangelism and missions he would shake his head and reply in his signature dry British way in one word, “Disobedience.”
I didn’t say it wasn’t in the mix – just that it is by far the weakest of your points. It is a caricature because it ignores the list of major movers in missions and evangelism since the 1600’s that I mentioned.
The monster is in the machine today 🙂 I meant to say
Since I sat under Dr. Packer on several occasions I think I can speak to than pretty well. Packer is a definite Calvinist with a capitol C. Dr Packer’s premise is that it is wrong to see the sovereignty of God and the responsibility of man as at odds with one another.
It may be the weakest of my points, but it’s hardly a caricature. For one, the fact that evangelists of the Reformed persuasion must discuss this potential incongruity is evidence that it can be problematic. Secondly, there is equal weight on the side of Armenian “movers in missions and evangelism.” Calvinists aren’t the only ones who evangelize. In fact, in my opinion, Armenians have a far more compelling reason to preach the Gospel (i.e., souls are at stake), than do Calvinists (I must obey God, but he can save souls in spite of me). I’m not giving preference to one or the other, as much as I am emphasizing their logical differences. Appreciate your comments, Tim!
An I appreciate you Mike. The problem here is you weren’t discussing what is wrong with both systems but only one. “Calvinism undermines evangelistic outreach” is a categorical statement and as such it does show a preference. I have made no statements about how Armenians undermine evangelism so I had no need to talk about the Anabaptists, or Moravians, or Weslyeans. Great men and women in that bunch for sure!
Perhaps in your logical understanding the Reformed faith undermines evangelism but it didn’t Spurgeon’s.
As I said in the comments here, I see weaknesses in both systems. Nevertheless, I consider myself a “modified Calvinist” far more than a “modified Arminian.” My first objection may be my main one: “No one human system perfectly codifies and articulates all Truth.” One of my big problems with hardcore Reformed folks is that they inevitably get protective of their “system,” as if Calvinism was itself Inspired by God. Sorry, but Calvinism has potential flaws just like any other theological system. Have a great week, Tim!
And on those last two sentences we are in total agreement. 😀
Whenever these discussions–and ive been in many of them–get too insistive, strident or intense (usually my fault) I have been reminding myself of that gem of a section in 1 Corinthians 1:
10 I appeal to you, brothers, [1] by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree, and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and the same judgment. 11 For it has been reported to me by Chloe’s people that there is quarreling among you, my brothers. 12 What I mean is that each one of you says, “I follow Paul,” or “I follow Apollos,” or “I follow Cephas,” or “I follow Christ.” 13 Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?
—-
At some point we have to accept that these doctrinal differences are the modern version of angels dancing on pinheads
Mike, I agree with your points. I have grown up Southern Baptists and do not believe, despite some Reformists’ claims, that SB’s are traditionally Calvinistic. If this were the case predeistination would have been taught denomination wide, but we are finding this teaching creeping up just recently. Secondly, many churches are splitting because of this issue because people in Southern Baptist churches do not agree with Calvinism. The most troubeling reasons for church splitting is that most Reformed ministers are not up front with their churches and churches find out after the fact that the pastor they called believes something they never knew he believed.
Among the points I would add about Calvinism is the danger it proposes to the origin of Sin. If God has predetermined who would be saved and who would stay subjects of God’s wrath, then who is responsible for sin? I have heard seom 5-pointers go as far as to say that God desired sin to come into the world so that he could glorify himself through his wrath taken out on the reprobate. Does this seem, to anyone else, exactly NOT what we read in Scripture? How could a God who so hates sin, so detests those who choose it over him, have created sin?
Some Reformed theologians will say that man freely chose sin and therefore ushered sin into the world. But if God, before they were able to do good or bad, predetermined those to salvation, would he not then be responsible for the sin that separates those whom he chooses for heaven and those whom he chooses for hell?
So you wrote this in 2007 and called it a first draft. In what ways have you modified your position or improved the articulation of it?