Lately, I have been asked why I rejected Calvinism after accepting it in 1998. I realized that I don’t have a single post which addresses the issue, which is odd, given that I post so much and so often on the Calvinist-Arminian debate. I’ll give you a brief history of my accepting Calvinism, state what caused me to question and then abandon the system, and then why I continue to reject some of Calvinism’s core doctrines. This post is not meant to be an exhaustive, historically-contextual, biblical and exegetical critique of Calvinism (I don’t really intend to quote Scripture, though I may). This is simply one person’s brief, historical experience with Calvinism. (I encourage you to read other accounts of former Calvinists who rejected Calvinism at Arminian Perspectives.)
Solus Arminius
Living Out Thanksgiving
We in America tend to focus heavily on being grateful during this season. While being gracious, thankful and grateful is a nice social virtue, as Christians we are called to live out our lives daily being thankful. In our relationships with other followers of Christ, we are to speak to one another “in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody with [our] heart to the Lord” (Eph. 5:19 NASB). The manner in which we are to carry this out is continually “giving thanks for all things in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ to God, even the Father” (Eph. 5:20 NASB).
Sovereignty, not Determinism
Arminians have a high view of God’s sovereignty, contrary to the caricatures and lies spread of us to the contrary. As a matter of fact, we think Arminians hold to a higher view of God’s sovereignty than do Calvinists, as I was reminded recently from my Arminian brother Johnathan Pritchett. The reason our view is considered “higher” is due to the following. For an omnipotent God, strictly controlling all people is easy and effortless. Like moving chess pieces on a chessboard, the movements are swift and carefree. The pieces move wherever the overseer places them without the slightest challenge whatsoever.
The Implication of the Calvinistic Hermeneutic of Total Depravity
The acronym TULIP1, in my opinion, works well as a system and should be taken as a whole and not in parts. If one accepts the doctrine of Unconditional Election — which is a product of the Calvinist’s view of Total Depravity and Total Inability — then I see no reason for rejecting either the doctrines Limited Atonement, Irresistible Grace, or of course Perseverance of the Saints. I think the only consistent form of Calvinism is Supralapsarian TULIP Calvinism, and any deviation from such is inconsistent. For the sake of space, I do not care to explain my reasons why; I just want to make those statements and carry on to the main point of the post.
The Synod of Dort vs. Arminius and the Remonstrants
Nearly a decade after the death of Arminius, the States General hold a synod (council or assembly), wherein religious and state officials from various regions accuse the Arminians of heresy and expel them from both pulpit ministry and teaching theology in Holland (read “Dutch Calvinists against Religious Freedom: Synod of Dort“). The result of the Synod of Dort comes to us in the Canons of Dort. (“Canons” refer to a Rule of Decrees or Judgments.) Therein are statements of affirmation and denial of various subjects, both theological and soteriological (i.e., doctrine of salvation).
Calvinists Still Honing Their Skill in Misrepresenting Arminianism
In their book The Five Points of Calvinism: Defined, Defended, and Documented David Steele, Curtis Thomas, and S. Lance Quinn utterly misrepresent Arminianism on the subject of Total Depravity, stating that Arminianism teaches: “Although human…
No Interpretation Needed: Deliverance from a Naive Approach to Biblical Interpretation
We have all, most likely, encountered believers who insist that they neither adhere to this or that theological position: they are, simply, “biblicists” (i.e., what opponents of this theory call naïve realism1). Such believers “don’t follow a man’s teaching,” they “just read their Bible.” On one level, there is an admirable simplicity in such a confession. On another level, however, such an approach to biblical interpretation is not only naïve but is fallacious and self-deceptive because it neglects the fact that we all read Scripture from cultural and personal presuppositions already in place.
Dutch Calvinists against Religious Freedom: Synod of Dort
Arminius and the Remonstrants fight tenaciously for religious freedom in Dutch society (link), but early seventeenth-century Calvinists are adamantly opposed to any semblance of theological toleration — not to mention freedom — other than their…
Have You Missed the Point Regarding Arminianism?
Dr. Craig Blomberg, Distinguished Professor of New Testament at Denver Seminary, in a post entitled “Why I’m a Calminian,” writes, “If either pure five-point Calvinism or its consistent repudiation in pure Arminianism were completely faithful to Scripture, it is doubtful that so many Bible-believing, godly evangelical Christians would have wound up on each side. The former wants to preserve the Scriptural emphasis on divine sovereignty; the latter, on human freedom and responsibility.” Dr.
God’s Proactive, Enabling, Sufficient, Prevenient Grace
Since the Arminian believes, like the Calvinist, in Total Depravity and Total Inability, but disagrees with the Calvinistic implication that this fact necessitates a doctrine of Unconditional Election or Irresistible Grace, what, then, in Arminian…
Various Interpretations vs. Truth
Is Calvinism biblical? Is Arminianism biblical? Is Pentecostalism biblical? Is Cessationism biblical? Is Exhaustive Determinism biblical? Is Libertarian Free Will biblical? Is Open Theism biblical? Is Trinitarianism biblical? Is Modalism biblical? We can ask this…
No One Can “See” the Kingdom of God
Jesus met a man named Nicodemus one evening and a dialogue about spiritual issues ensued. Jesus got right to the heart of the matter by stating, “Very truly, I tell you, no one can see the kingdom of God without being born from above” (John 3:3 NRSV). Nicodemus had just informed Jesus that he and some others knew with certainty that He was “a teacher who has come from God” (John 3:2 NRSV). They knew such because “no one can do these signs that you do apart from the presence of God” (John 3:2 NRSV). Instead of taking the opportunity to claim Himself as the LORD’s Christ, Jesus cut to the heart of the issue. He realized that mere acknowledgement of Himself as the Christ (mere mental assent) does not save a sinner. The truth is that sinners must be born again.
Conditional Perseverance
Many who call themselves “Arminian” also hold to the doctrine of Eternal Security, even though this has not historically been the case. This fact has recently granted that Arminianism no longer stands or falls with…
This Ain’t Your Grandpa’s Arminianism
What I have witnessed from recent Arminius and Arminian scholarship, at least among those who are self-identified as being Arminian, differs, I think, from what was known as Arminian fifty to hundred years ago, with very few exceptions.1
James Arminius on the Stage of Time
“There lived in Holland a man, whom they that did not know him could not sufficiently esteem; whom they who did not esteem him had never sufficiently known,”1 said Peter Bertius (1565-1629), friend to Arminius in his youth, at the funeral of James Arminius, October 1609. When most people think of James Arminius, they tend to think of free will or the notion that one can lose his or her salvation. That is unfortunate, since Arminius did not champion the cause of free will, nor was he the poster-child for the doctrine of Apostasy.
John Calvin’s successor and son-in-law, Theodore Beza (1519-1605), in a letter written to the Rev. Martin Lydius in 1583, a professor who belonged to the Church of Amsterdam (where Arminius would later become pastor for fifteen years), writes:
Arminius on the Repercussions of the Freedom of God
God, being free from necessity to establish the world in which we exist, freely entered into a covenant with the man and woman He created subsequent to their disobedience of the one command which He…
Justin Taylor, Ardel Caneday, and the New (Gnostic) Calvinism
Gnosticism, according to Patheos, refers to “a philosophical and religious movement in the Greco-Roman world that claimed that the path to salvation is through secret knowledge.” Gnostic tendencies among some professing believers began in the…
Faith Is Not a Work
“Now to the one who works,” writes the apostle Paul, “wages are not credited as a gift but as an obligation. However, to the one who does not work but trusts God who justifies the…
Calvinism’s God Is Satan and Other Such Nonsense
Evidently, Calvinists believe in another Christ, and their god is not the God of the Bible, but merely Satan, according to one anti-Calvinist preacher (link). What I find utterly bizarre about the snippet of this…
The Confession and Catechism Support Arminianism
What should occur if the Belgic Confession and the Heidelberg Catechism supports not supralapsarian Calvinism but Arminius’s theology? Both works have always been viewed as Calvinistic, with the assumption that the inherent predestinatory language opposes Reformed Arminianism. In truth, even the more explicit statements regarding election unto salvation in the Confession and Catechism supports Arminius’s doctrine of election. A national synod was not called prior to Arminius’s death in 1609, so we will never know what might have been.
Recent Posts
Roy Ingle, “Calvinism and the Atonement”
Why Does God Deny the Opportunity of Choice for or Against Him to Young Children Who Die and the Mentally Impaired?
Mark K. Olson, “Wesley’s ‘Warmed Heart’ at Aldersgate – What Really Happened?”
Adam Roe, “The Crucial Thread of Prevenient Grace: A Wesleyan Perspective on Divine Drawing”
