Every few years, someone makes a name for himself by selling books and going on the road with his “solution” to the age-old debate between Calvinists and Arminians. Usually, his schtick is along the lines of “Both groups are right in some ways, wrong in some ways, and unable to see the middle way that I’ve discovered.” To the untrained, untaught, or those weary of the debate, this sounds appealing. It also appeals to all those Christians who’ve been taught that it is a stain on your name to be called a Calvinist or an Arminian. It sounds good to those whose leaders have told them that “we’re not Calvinists or Arminians, we’re just Biblicists“. Ah, yes. Biblicists. The rest of us are using the Koran, are we?
Here’s the reason to be sceptical about claims to have “solved the debate” in a new way. This debate goes back to at least the fourth century. In fact, debates about predestination were even present long before that in Judaism, between the Pharisees and the Sadducees. In this debate, there are a basic set of questions, and these questions can only be answered in a certain number of ways. All of those questions have been asked, and the possible answers have all been given. What remains is to choose which answers you think are the most biblically faithful.
Here is a suggested list of those questions, which have been answered variously for two thousand years.
First, can human beings believe on Christ in their natural state, or does their natural will need God’s grace to believe?
Second, does God’s grace enable choice, or does it secure belief? That is, does God’s intervention enable everyone to believe, putting the ball firmly back in the human court of free will, or does it effectually persuade a person to believe?
Third, did God choose people to salvation before creation for His own reasons, or did God foresee people’s choices and choose them on that basis?
Probably most Christians will answer the first question by stating that our wills need God’s grace. The second question is where the differences begin. If God’s grace creates merely the potential to believe, then the decisive factor is the human will. This is the position of Arminianism. If, however, God’s grace is effectual, then it does not merely create the potential for faith, but inevitably leads to faith. This is the position of Calvinism.
The third question flows out of how you answer the second, and vice versa. If grace creates merely the potential to believe, then election cannot be selective, only responsive. Election is then conditional: conditioned upon people using the supplied potential grace to believe. This is the position of Arminianism. If, however, grace secures a response, then election can only be selective. Election is then unconditional: no conditions met by humans in time determined God’s choice in eternity past. This is the position of Calvinism.
How you answer those questions determines where you land in this debate. And the answers are, as we’ve just shown, fairly binary. You take the Arminian position or the Calvinist one.
Yes, some answer by denying that the choices are true alternatives and simply say, “It’s both”. But that is not an appeal to mystery or paradox. That is an appeal to illogicality.
Scripture does teach that salvation involves both divine determination and human responsibility – that’s the mystery. It does not teach that election is both conditional and unconditional – that’s just nonsense.
Scripture does teach that God must draw the sinner and the sinner must voluntarily come – that’s the mystery. It does not teach that grace is both prevenient and effectual – that’s just contradictory.
No one gets to postulate absurdity, contradiction, or nonsense as “mystery”. In other words, there isn’t a middle position between prevenient grace and effectual grace. There isn’t a middle position between unconditional and conditional election. Which means there isn’t a middle position between Calvinism and Arminianism.
Now, you can certainly hold your Arminianism or Calvinism in varying degrees of strength, and hold or modify some of the attendant doctrines of perseverance and limited atonement, and the ordo salutis. You might be a Calvinist who rejects limited atonement. You might be an Arminian who holds to eternal security. You might be a Calvinist who places faith before regeneration. Strict Arminians, moderate Arminians, moderate Calvinists and strict Calvinists are all orthodox Christians occupying different places on the spectrum of how God’s grace functions in salvation from eternity past to eternity future. The questions of grace and election themselves have binary answers, but how you hold the matrix of the doctrines of grace is not a binary matter. But in the end, you’re some kind of Calvinist, or some kind of Arminian.
Maybe you really dislike the terms Calvinist and Arminian and don’t want to be called either. That’s fine: you may reject a label. But you don’t get to manufacture non-existent theological positions out of thin air, and call them biblicist. You don’t get to affirm contradictions and call them mystery. And you shouldn’t try to convince Christians that you’ve stumbled upon the undiscovered country of the middle way between these positions.
I have read this twice now (which I generally do with these gems). Unlike your sermons, where it is necessary to sometimes take detours to get to the essence of that week’s message, one of the many pleasures of reading each “Latest from David” is that you are concise in stating your point and remorseless in the logic you apply to get there. Seeing an issue as old and of such complexity through the prism you place before us is immensely valuable. Thank you!
Hello David. I have followed your blog for years, but this is my first time commenting. I am a layman.
My own personal history is of growing up in a church where the term “Calvinist” was a four-letter word. In my adult life I attended a church that was more Calvinistic, however in recent years I have found myself returning to my roots to a degree. Though I do believe the Fall was devastating and left man condemned with no ability to save himself, I also believe that God left man with the ability to turn to the One who is able to save him. Question: Do you see this position as the “Middle Ground”, a variant of Arminianism, or something different in its own right? I had much more to write, but I kept hitting the character limit.
Hi Duane,
It does depend on what you mean by ability. If by ability you mean responsibility to turn to God, then that position is held by both Calvinists and Arminians. If you mean that 2 people have equal ability to turn to God, and the reason why one does and the other doesn’t is that the one used his ability and the other didn’t, that that would be more a form of prevenient grace, which is an Arminian doctrine. It’s not so much a Middle Ground doctrine as a classic Arminian view. In hyper-Arminianism, people can turn to God without God’s grace at all.
Definitely by Grace and Grace alone are we drawn. Ephesians 2:8-9: “For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast.”
David,
You beautifully and concisely stated what I have been saying for years in private, in forums, and when answering questions. Thank you. This one will be book marked.
Dan
You have left out the place that I land which is that God works in different ways with different people, and different ways with the same person at different times. That is not contradictory. You can see the difference in the stories of Saul/Paul in Acts 9 and Cornelius in Acts 10. Arminians typically asset Paul could have said no. Calvinists typically say Cornelius was coming toward God because he was showing the outcome of effectual grace. But both have to insert their position into the biblical text. We all agree that justification is always by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone of course