What Is “Calvinism” (And Why Does It Matter)?
In the last blog article, I touched on “meticulous sovereignty” (the belief that God controls every single thing that happens, down to the most minute detail, in human affairs) and how this belief is central to a theological system (set of controlling beliefs) known as Calvinism. I suggested we might look at this a bit more.
So there are two questions here: (a) what is Calvinism, and (b) why does it matter (who really cares)? The second question is actually the more important one; to which the short answer is because of Calvinism’s influence (an unhelpful one, in my view) on everyday mainstream evangelicalism—usually, without its influence being recognised.
It’s important to say that although Calvinism is part of conservative evangelicalism—both having originated in the Protestant Reformation—by no means is all conservative evangelicalism Calvinist in nature. In other words, you don’t have to agree with everything Calvinists say in order to be a “proper” conservative evangelical (though Calvinists may try to argue that). For example, the contrary position to Calvinism on its key points is Arminianism, which also stems from the Reformation and is equally evangelical.
Calvinism derives from the teachings of the French theologian John Calvin (1509–1564), while the less-well known Arminianism originates with the Dutch theologian Jacobus Arminius (1560–1609).
In case this is beginning to sound like it’s going to be dry, boring theology, the reason that being aware of Calvinist beliefs matters is because of their influence on who we think God is and what we think God is like: how God goes about things—his nature and character—and how he engages with people. Our core ideas on these questions are the “lenses” through which all of us think about God, the Bible and the Christian faith (whether we realize it or not). If we look through the lenses of a Calvinist God, the picture we will derive is one that (I would say) is unhelpful. Many evangelical leaders are, sadly, completely unaware of the influence of Calvinism on what they wrongly assume to be “standard” beliefs that “must be” shared by all evangelicals, to be “proper” evangelicals.
One well-known Calvinist is the late Ian Paisley Snr., who founded the Free Presbyterian Church of Ulster, which is fundamentalist (it believes in a fully-literal view of the Bible), anti-Catholic, complementarian as regards the place of women, and separatist (it does not associate with other Christian groups that do not share its doctrinal positions).
Calvinists you may have come across—no, they’re not just “evangelicals,” they’re also Calvinists—include names such as John Piper, Wayne Grudem, Mark Driscoll, John MacArthur, Al Mohler, and the late Tim Keller. Often dubbed “Neo-Calvinists,” or “New Calvinists,” they reflect a mix of traditional Calvinist theology and aggressively conservative evangelical culture. By all means like what they say and write, if you will, but just be aware that this is where they are coming from. As with fundamentalism, Calvinism has a low tolerance for other perspectives, especially insofar as they challenge the cultural conservatism that Calvinists see as self-evidently right; they attack any postmodern way of thinking while uncritically imbibing modernity’s ways of thinking as “biblical.” They’re against egalitarianism and feminism.
Other features of Calvinism’s cultural conservativism will be fairly obvious—hazard some guesses, and you’ll almost certainly be right—so what about its theological basis? This centres on what are called the Five Points of Calvinism, reflected in an acrostic, TULIP. The letters stand for Total Depravity, Unconditional Election, Limited Atonement, Irresistible Grace, and the Perseverance of the Saints. Explaining these simply is not straightforward, not least because Calvinists will complain when critics (as they see it) misrepresent them. In part this is because Calvinists themselves recognize the difficulty in explaining and defending them (see, for example, this article on the Reformed Faith and Practice website, https://tinyurl.com/3u7kw9as).
Total Depravity says that all human beings are completely corrupted by sin; we have no intrinsic good and are wholly deserving of eternal damnation.
Unconditional Election says that God alone sovereignly decides (“elects”) who is saved and who is not; no individual’s actions or choices play any part in that.
Limited Atonement says that Jesus did not die for the sins of everyone but only those people whom God decided to save.
Irresistible Grace says that no one to whom God extends his grace (by choosing them to be saved) can resist that grace; everyone whom God intends to be saved will therefore be saved (and vice versa).
The Perseverance of the Saints says that those who are chosen for salvation in this way will inevitably “persevere” in their faith (they won’t fall away) because it’s God who has chosen (“elected”) them.
The theme connecting all Five Points is a very high view of God’s sovereignty—whatever he chooses in terms of who is saved and who is not saved will inevitably happen (no individual’s actions can contribute to it or stop it). Its corresponding weakness is that there is no place whatsoever for human free will or choice. The Reformed Faith and Practice website article referenced earlier argues that these five points are really one point: the grace of God. However, a critic would surely say that the one point is God’s authoritarian control.
It is hard to see how there is any point in challenging people to respond to the gospel if those who will and won’t be saved has already been decided (it won’t change anything). There seems no point in striving to live an increasingly sanctified life, desiring to conform more and more to the image of God that we see in Jesus if our eternal salvation is guaranteed regardless. Equally, though, a hardcore Calvinist can surely never have any certainty that they will be saved, however much they may desire it and pursue God in this life. What if they haven’t been “elected”? How can they know? The “comfort” of God’s sovereign control over everything that happens is only comfort if a person knows they are a beneficiary of it (which they can never know for sure).
Arminianism, simply stated, takes a mostly contrary view on Calvinism’s Five Points—central to all of which is the part necessarily played by human free will (the ability to choose for or against responding to God’s grace). It recognizes the biblical truth that “all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,” but that does not mean an individual cannot grasp God’s grace and respond to it by personal choice. Though it agrees that the image of God in humanity is diminished and damaged by sin (to greater and lesser extents) elements may still be seen, reflective of a once “very good” creation (Genesis 1:27) that God intends to “save” (i.e., to restore and redeem). There is a residual goodness that can still at times be seen in humanity and is worthy of encouragement (though, of course, it does not qualify us for salvation or earning God’s love—not that we need to, of course, since it is already freely available). Romans 5:5 tells us, "God’s love has been poured out into our hearts through the Holy Spirit, who has been given to us.”
Arminianism believes in “conditional” election; in other words, although God invites all to be saved (the atonement is unlimited—everyone’s sins were dealt with at the cross) salvation is conditional on individuals freely choosing it. God invites and welcomes; he does not dictate and impose in a way that ignores and overrides free will. Because free will is a feature of how God created us, God’s grace is “resistible” by those who choose to.
I began by observing Calvinism’s influence on everyday mainstream evangelicalism without that influence being recognised. Yet Calvinism does not define evangelicalism; it’s merely one stream. The irony of evangelical leaders being ignorant of its influence is that the vast majority of conservative evangelical churches invite an “Arminian” (freewill-based) gospel response every Sunday. They will also encourage Christians to seek to increasingly conform their lives to the image of God in Christ—to live lives that please him, to reflect his love for people by doing good in this world. And they will promote an assurance of salvation through abiding in Christ and inviting Christ to abide in us. All of which is pointless if the Five Points of Calvinism are correct.
Before quoting—let alone, recommending—writers and speakers such as Piper, Grudem, and Keller, evangelical leaders should be aware that they are Calvinists and hence, this is unwittingly exposing a congregation to their wider beliefs (both cultural and theological). One brief example will suffice. In an interview on his Desiring God website—titled What Made It Okay for God to Kill Women and Children In the Old Testament?—Piper explains what he thinks “made it okay”: “It’s right for God to slaughter women and children anytime he pleases. God gives life and he takes life. Everybody who dies, dies because God wills that they die.”
(We can see that Calvinist influence coming through in the bridge to Matt Redman’s otherwise excellent worship song, Blessed Be Your Name: “You give and take away, You give and take away”).
To me, the biggest problem with Calvinism is the nature and character of God that it presents. Stated bluntly (forgive me), the Calvinist God is a dictatorial control freak. For more on this, see my recent article, https://www.steveburnhope.com/blog/does-every-christian-have-a-calling. Calvinists can only defend against that impression by verbal gymnastics. Relationship scarcely comes into it—or in Star Trek terms (in the classic archetypal conversation between Dr Leonard "Bones" McCoy and USS Enterprise Captain James T. Kirk), “It’s relationship, Jim, but not as we know it.”