Why I Am Not A Calvinist
I am often asked if I am “Reformed” and usually respond by asking the inquirer what they mean by the question. Are they asking if I am a firm believer in God’s sovereignty or are they asking if I am a full fledged Calvinist? I have to clarify the question because I can affirm the former but not the latter.
Whenever I am asked about my theological “persuasion”, alarms usually go off in my head because I expect that the person asking probably has an agenda. That agenda usually is to find out if I am in “their camp” or not. And, the truth is that almost always I am not.
What I mean by that is there is no “camp” that I am completely comfortable within. And, either that means I am a confused theologian who can’t make his mind up about my affiliations or it means that perhaps the plethora of persuasions simply leave many of us sincere students of the Word wanting.
When I was in seminary all the cool kids were the “Free-Gracers”. Those of us who considered ourselves “Lordshipers” were on the outside, but it’s funny how times change and that now the theological in-crowd has shifted. It seems that most of the veritable superstars today are Reformed, which either means that I actually am cool or that given enough time everyone will be at some point!
The pendulum of trendy theologies continues to swing and what is considered to be “more biblical” today will likely be considered less so tomorrow. Who knows…perhaps Arminians will have their day too. It’s just speculation, but something inside me says that Molinism will be the new trend, and it will become the chosen tradition in a few years.
When pressed about why I don’t subscribe to any particular tradition, I usually express that it’s because I haven’t found one that does justice to ALL the Scriptures and adequately accounts for its own apparent disparities. All the formal persuasions I have studied thus far have clear and fundamental weaknesses that undermine the credibility of their paradigms.
For example, I am not a “Free-Gracer” because though I fully appreciate the nature and purity of grace, I just cannot see in Scripture the clear distinctions it makes between Savior and Lord, believer and disciple, Israel and the Church. For the same reasons, I am not a Classic Dispensationalist adding that forcing a narrow view of eschatology and a literal reading on every genre of Scripture is unnecessary and perhaps even inappropriate.
At the same time, I am not a classic “Lordshiper” because though I fully embrace the necessity of recognizing Jesus as Lord, I also am cold to the idea of automatic progressive sanctification. And for more reasons, I am not a Reformed Calvinist because I find the idea of limited or particular atonement as well as irresistible grace to be biblically indefensible. Though some Calvinists insist that it is biblical and necessary, I contend that it is not only indefensible but reprehensible to think that God only really loves the “elect” world and that He only sent His Son into the world to die for them.
In order for me, and I suspect many others, to sign on with any human theological paradigm, it would have to do justice not only to the letter of the Scriptures but also to the spirit of the Scriptures. Meaning, any construct would have to be both logically sustainable and theologically palatable. To date, I haven’t found one that suffices, and perhaps it is because none of them actually do.
Paul’s letter to the Corinthians suggests he felt the same. He wrote: “I appeal to you, brothers, by the name of our Lord Jesus, 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. For it has been reported to me that there is quarreling among you, my brothers. 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’. Is Christ divided?”
Paul’s contention is with allegiances to certain individuals rather than simply to Christ, and it easily follows that allegiances to theological persuasions and paradigms would also be in view since everyone cited in the passage was a teacher of the Scriptures and naturally had those around them who gravitated toward their ministry.
Paul’s primary issue with allegiances is that they divide. He specifically asks a rhetorical question to make the point that Christ is most certainly not divided up among individuals or camps. No, he urges the church to “agree and that there be no divisions” in the Church. His definition of agreement is that we be united in both the same mind AND same judgment.
The implication of Paul’s admonition is that not only should our minds be one but our hearts should be too. To have the same judgment is to see Scripture together and not let trivial disagreements divide us. Unity apparently is paramount to Paul just as it was for Jesus. And yet, we tend to find all kinds of new ways to disagree with and oppose each other on lesser things.
I have made no bones about that fact that I am not a big fan of denominationalism for many of the same reasons I am not a fan of theological camps. For a body that is supposed to be known for its unity to instead be notorious for its divisions is embarrassing and is, in my view, a violation of the very oneness that Jesus and Paul clearly called us to.
When we establish new denominations or create theological camps, what we are telling people is who is welcome among us and who isn’t. This is a perplexing message to send not only to the world but also to other believers! Why would be purposely create theological boundaries around ourselves that are unnecessary and in conflict with body unity?
Now, I am not saying that there are not occasions and reasons to demarcate our beliefs as evangelicals, especially when gospel central orthodox issues are in question. But, what I don’t understand is why we would purposely create paradigms that foster divisive allegiances around non-essential issues.
And, what are non-essential issues? To name just a few, the precise order of salvation (ordo salutis), the role of women in vocational ministry, the continuation of apostolic gifts, the timing and order of end times events, and the precise age of the earth, which have all proven to be unnecessarily divisive and distracting issues in the church today.
I would also include in this list the extra-biblical acrostics and paradigms of Calvinism, Arminianism, Dispensationalism, etc. that may be helpful for bringing certain narrow theological persuasions together but also perhaps unhelpful by thwarting greater unity within the Church at large.
My contention is that these distinctions are not only unnecessary but also counterproductive to the sanctified pursuit of unity within the Church. My hope is that those of us who are left wanting by these distinctions would prove to be an unsilent majority and resist such divisions, choosing instead to embrace the call to unity that Jesus and Paul clearly gave to us.
I sincerely pray that we will come to the point where we can identify ourselves as followers of Jesus only and that our allegiances would only be toward the Scriptures and its clear mandates. Toward that end, I look forward to the day when divisive designations are set aside and the Church starts moving again toward and no longer away from oneness.
Amen, just proves the only perfection is what is found in the bible not “human theological paradigm.” Satan divides, Christ unifies. (great read during my lunch break, ha)
Thanks, Lori. Glad to provide you some lunchtime fodder. Great to hear from you!
A great word Kent. Its time to move past these things that divide us and get back to what ultimately matters.. Thanks for the good word and expressing it so well.
Thanks, Jeff. You encourage me. I appreciate you taking the time to say it.
Yet again Kent you have uncanny timing. I was just having this exact conversation with some believers on Facebook who keep having arguments with other believers because they disagree with the OSAS platform. It’s very frustrating to see this type of discourse expressed in an open forum where a non-believer could read it and possibly draw an incorrect assumption that the Bible has contradictions or that it is in some way unclear.
Jamie, you are right. We spend so much time splitting hairs and spinning wheels over secondary things that we lose sight of what is primary. I appreciate your comment.
Brother, I’m so glad you posted this. I know we’ve discussed this before, but it’s great to know that the tides are turning in this area. The more I speak to my peers, the more it seems that people are getting fed up with divisiveness. It’s encouraging to see this becoming more and more the case–Christians pursuing unity and love above their own agendas. We’ve got a long way to go yet, but I’m glad for the winds of change. Blessings!
Thanks, M. I’m encouraged by the move toward oneness among the next generation and have hopes that things will change. You are part of that sis!
I, too, could never really be nailed down to being either Calvinist or Arminian. Sometimes I think I sway more towards the former and sometimes the latter. I remember talking about it with classmates and constantly finding things about each side that I agreed with. Do I think mankind is inherently depraved? Yes. Is God’s forgiveness offered unconditionally and not based upon merit? Yup, I believe that. But what exactly does it mean to be among the “elect” and how do you get to be a part of that group? Is it based on God’s choice or do you become elect because you believed? And did you believe because God allowed you to believe, or did you genuinely respond to Him via free will? How can God “elect” only certain people to be saved? Didn’t Jesus die for all people (1 Tim 2:5-6)? These questions arise ad infinitum.
To think we could really figure all this out on our own is arrogant and foolish. And to expect people to choose between one or the other is equally so. All this just goes to show how hard our finite minds have to work to try to comprehend infinite things, and how consistent we are in falling short.
Amen, Scott. I too think we would be wiser to live with the tension and resist the temptation to have to know all the answers. I appreciate your contributions. Thanks for making them!
Hello Kent
I have always thought : in essentials unity,nonessentials liberty and all else chairty. Do you think He, God, wanted unity of thought in all things ? It’s late and I am tired, but I was a little confused by some of your terms. Maybe a definition or two would help when you post, like free gracer and lodrshipper,terms I have not heard before. Anyway as for the most basic boiled down point of your blog,a question. Are we not gifts to the Son from the Father ? And if so does a gift have a choice to be given. I am not a five point calvinist but it seems that predestination is a clear point made by Paul, in more than one book.I have always been taught not to go to an extreme one way or the other, so when this topic or other topics,comes up I have a tendency to go to which ever side opposite from the point of view of the person making the point. Sorry for bouncing around a bit but like I said it’s late,and past my bedtime also my excuse for my poor grammar and spelling. lol One last question for you, regarding limiited atonement, do you think that God has one love for His own and another love for all mankind ? Or is His love the same for all humanity ? love this stuff and I am looking forward to hearing back …ybiC in unity rich
Hi Rich. Thanks for the comments. I like Augustine’s quote about unity in essentials, liberty in non-essentials and charity in all things, which absolutely relates to my post. I chose not to include it only because I have used it many times before and it is implied for me.
As for your question about us being gifts from the Father to the Son, I’m not sure where you get that idea from Scripture. It’s not something I have run across and would supersede any free choice on our part if it is true. We must accept that free choice is ours and it therefore must be reconciled with the Scriptures on election/predestination.
One thing to keep in mind is that there are both corporate and individual aspects to election in Scripture. While God perhaps does choose us as individuals, it seems that God also chooses His Church corporately so we should be careful not to presume that all election/predestination passages are specific to individuals.
The bottom line is that we must reconcile the fact that God elects and that we choose, which is why I personally like Molinism as it adequately addresses this issue. I am not a Calvinist or an Arminian, so I am always looking for something in between.
As for your question about God’s love, I do not see evidence of two different kinds of love for the elect and for the lost. I think the Scriptures are quite clear about God’s love for ALL people who are created in his image. I believe the Bible communicates emphatically that God loves the lost as much as the found, and to distinguish between the two is inconsistent with the biblical mandate and harmful to the gospel mission.
Hey Kent,, I love this. I will try to always back up my thought’s with Scripture,not just feeling’s..
in John 6:37 Jesus says
37 All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out.
Schwandt, J., & Collins, C. J. (2006; 2006). The ESV English-Greek Reverse Interlinear New Testament (Jn 6:37). Logos Research Systems, Inc.
The greek word for give according to the Strongs concordance implies the giving of a gift,,,2a1 to bestow a gift,,,,
Strong, J. (1996). The exhaustive concordance of the Bible : Showing every word of the text of the common English version of the canonical books, and every occurrence of each word in regular order. (electronic ed.). Ontario: Woodside Bible Fellowship.
I do not have your knowledge of greek or the equal knowledge of Scripture’s so I very well could be misunderstanding this,but when I read and study this passage I get the impression that the Father give us to the Son and that it is a refrence to salvation. If we are indeed a gift, it is a challenge to figure out our choice in that. Please don’t get me wrong, I do very much believe we have a choice and are required to make a choice, I enjoy trying to understand Gods mind,,, not an easy thing to do.
What do you think about Rom.9:21 in regards to this issue ? Paul seems to say that God indeed predestine’s some for honor and some for dishonor ? Is Paul talking about savlation here ? It also seems Eph.1:5,would imply we are choosen by His will. I found this issue such a challenge when I first became a Christian and really started to study the Word. I had such trouble with a loving God predestining some to heaven and some to hell.
I know we could go back and forth here for a very long time, and I would very much love it. But I have to study about the other issue, love, and the difference that I think God shows from His general love of all mankind and His specific love for His own. I will try to do due diligence and come up with some examples from Scripture to back up my thoughts on this subject.
I had a wonderful Bible study teacher once who taught me the love of getting deep into the Word. I also had a great pastor who taught me never to go to an extreme in either direction and to always define terms we are talking about. I think I will, when I look back one day, consider you to be another great pastor in my life who teach’s me a lot about the Bible, and how to study it properly.. I really enjoy your teaching from the pulpit and wish you had an indepth small group Bible study. ,but I know pastor’s have such a demand on their time.. ttyl ybiC rich
Rich,
I think the answer to your question is there within the verse as it acknowledges that we are “gifted” but that we must also “come” to Jesus. You are right to read salvation into that, and I find it most interesting that we see God’s choosing of us and our choosing of Him in the very same verse. That’s why I like the middle knowledge view on this.
At the same time, we should be careful not to build a theology based on one solitary verse. So, I wouldn’t take the reference to the “gifting” too far. If our salvation was essentially a gift from the Father to the Son, then we would find other Scriptures to confirm it. When we take the whole of teaching on salvation, we see evidence to support both God’s election and our freedom.
As for your suggestion about God having a different kind of love for His children than for the world, I would propose that having a different love for the lost would not really be love at all. God may have a special regard for His sons and daughters but I’m not sure we can say He loves them more than the lost. Jesus said that He will leave the 99 in the fold to go after the one that is lost in the field, and there are many passages in which God expresses His deep love for the estranged and the prodigal.
I looked up molinism and saw on the web site gotquestions.org an explanation of it, I very much like this explanation. I have a deep respect for William Lane Craig and have read some of his works. Thanks
I found also this section about the gift issue in a book I have,,,
Furthermore, it means that the elect are God’s gift of love to His Son. That’s why Christ refers to them as “those whom Thou hast given Me” (Jn. 17:9, 24; 18:9). The Father has given the elect to Christ as a gift of love, and therefore not one of them will be lost.
MacArthur, J., F., Jr. (2003, c1996). The God Who Loves. (161). Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers.
Overall, I applaud your viewpoint of striving for unity. I also want you to know that as I write this, I am not only responding to what I read, but I am thinking about how the words that follow fit my writing / speaking. While I agree with the danger of “camps” and “labels”, the reality is that we do, in fact, believe something! Your beliefs in certain areas and mine may differ, but unless we unless we fully adopt a postmodern view that advocates that a person can hold mutually contradictory statements, by definition only one of us can be right on any given point (of course, we could both be wrong!). So, how we deal with the differences at hand boils down, in my opinion, to four issues (1) Which topics are non-negotiable? The fact of creation (not the details thereof), the fact of the fall, and the gospel of salvation by grace alone through Christ alone are such topics. On lesser topics, we are free to debate, but the topics should not be “drop dead” issues in our unity. For example, the exact details of the return of Christ really only matter to the generation that is here when He returns! I have opinions and convictions about what that looks like, but to quote your dad, I am ultimately “a pan-tribulationalist. It will all pan out in the end.”(2) Correctly understanding and representing the view of the person with whom we differ to prevent avoidable debates and sources of tension. (3) Avoid loaded terminology that tends to push the “opponent” (for lack of a better term) into a defensive mode. (4) “Speak the truth in love”, that is, be gracious to those with whom we differ. If we guard how we discuss differences, one or both of us may change how we understand an issue. Sadly, in my opinion, too many people fail on all counts. For example, I once had a man call me a false teacher because I used the illustration that “the church is a hospital.”
If I may, let me apply my points to just two statements in one paragraph in your post. In the paragraph that begins, “For example, I am not a ‘free gracer’…” My point is not to convince you to change your views. However, as I read this paragraph, my defenses went up for two reasons. First, the distinctions you list aren’t quite right. I’ll only comment on one as an example: The difference between Israel and the church is not a free grace issue; it is a dispensational issue (whether free grace or lordship!). Be careful to accurately represent the view. Second, in the sentence about classical dispensationalism, you used the words “forcing a narrow view of eschatology and a literal reading on every genre of Scripture is unnecessary and somewhat abusive.” I lean towards the classic view, so when I read the words “forcing… narrow… unnecessary…. somewhat abusive”, my first response was defensive. I’m not advocating that I’m right or wrong, just that my willingness to listen with a teachable spirit decreased when my defensiveness increased.
The longer I serve, the more I understand the fragility of unity within the body. As I said at the start, I applaud your desire for unity. I hope in this response I applied the four principles I say I believe. If I failed, the burden is on me and I ask forgiveness.
Greetings, Roger. Thank you for the thoughtful and gracious response to my post. I appreciate what you are saying about the two excerpts with which you take issue. I would agree that the distinction between Israel and the Church is not primarily a free grace/lordship distinction but in my experience most if not all “freegracers” I know are dispensationalists and most “lordshipers” I know are not. So, though the distinction is primarily between dispensationalism and calvinism, I think it still applies to the free grace/lordship divide.
As for your concern about my statement referring to classical dispensationalism as “forcing an abusive” interpretation, I can understand why you would feel defensive. I think I could have left out the “somewhat abusive” part in my statement so you are right to point that out and I apologize for any offense. At the same time, I do think that classical or traditional dispensationalism unfairly forces a narrow interpretative grid upon Scripture, and I don’t know any other way to say it.
I fully understand that my post probably caricatures both sides a bit, but I hope that the assessments are at least legitimate and fair. I love and respect adherents of both views but am honestly tired of the never ending verbal grenades and polarized debates between camps about non-essential things. In my view, it’s wasted energy and counterproductive to the mission.
Kent,
This is so good man! Being in seminary now has brought me to the same reservations about certain camps. It is the battle of free grace and reformed and I hold to the same convictions you share in these theologies. When I first began my personal ministry I see why God led me to 1 Corinthians 1 regarding divisions. Is Christ divided? No, but His body seems to be amputated by these camp affiliations. Thank you for this. Even though I was a year late it was right on time. Bless you sir!
Warren Stewart, Jr.
Thanks, Warren! It’s so great to hear from you, my friend. I miss our old lunch meetings. I appreciate the kind words and you taking the time to read and post the comment. See you around the seminary sometime.
Some quote Calvin, as if they are quoting scripture, yet nowhere does scripture say that Calvin died for our sins. Respect the man, yes, but it is misguided to limit the work and gifts of the Holy Spirit in the Body of Christ post modernity based upon the Reformers Confession of Faith.
Thanks, Rev. Goodner! You are right. I’ve also found that high Calvinists often define themselves and their ministries by their tradition. I appreciate the comment.