The dichotomy of sovereignty and free-will and its effect on the way we view salvation is something all thinking Christians will encounter. This topic should neither be avoided, nor pushed aside as unimportant. When it is discussed in a reasoned and well mannered way it will help us appreciate and discover more truth about God and our faith, no matter what view we hold. In this discussion people typically assemble into two groups. To put it crudely, the classical 5 point Calvinist believes that people go to hell because God sovereignly chose to send them there. And on the other side is the Arminian, who believes hell is only for those who purely, by their free-will, chose to go there by rejecting God. Of course there are finer nuances to these views, but put simply this is the issue that gets discussed most often. I must say straight up that I’m not 100% Arminian, and neither am I against everything in Calvinism. Indeed, some of my favourite authors and speakers are Calvinists. This essay is merely a few objections to some of the existential realities of the Calvinist doctrine.
In the exchanges I have had with Calvinist friends it is clear to me that they have a deep appreciation for their salvation, and I certainly have no objection to that. They are grateful about the fact that they have been ‘elected’. But as the discussion develops, and more points are made, and their carefully selected verses are quoted vigorously, what comes across clearly to me is this: the appreciation of salvation is predominantly based on the damnation of others.
What makes election so grand is that they were chosen and others were not. Add to this the fact we are all ‘totally depraved’ and deserving of hell then it follows there can be no reason why God chose them over someone else. God could have used someone else’s salvation to glorify His name, but thankfully, they were the fortunate ones. This gives the impression that God indiscriminately damns people to hell or that He specifically, and for no reason other than sovereignty, creates them for this torture. I can’t see how this view of election glorifies God and gives more value to those who receive salvation. My parents don’t need to banish my brother and sister to give meaning to my sonship. Likewise, God does not have to damn other people in order to make being saved really meaningful.
This comparison-based appreciation of salvation which surfaces in my discussions is not, I believe, in keeping with the spirit of the Gospel. The life of Jesus demonstrated quite the opposite. After loving God, it’s all about ‘your neighbour’. Jesus’ whole mission was about saving others, not Himself. He came not to condemn the world but that the world might be saved through Him (John 3:17). Jesus was a friend to all sinners and openly declared that He came for the sick, not those who are well. The arms of the Gospel are much wider than we think.
My second objection to classical Calvinism comes in the area of apologetics. Again, my evidence is anecdotal and has emerged from discussions with various people, so it may be possible they were not good Calvinists and gave me the wrong answer. One particular discussion comes to mind. It was during his defence of TULIP, which is the acronym for the 5 points of Calvinism (Total depravity Unconditional election Limited atonement Irresistible grace Perseverance of the saints), that I asked what God’s foremost characteristic was, and without hesitation he replied ‘God is sovereign’.
God’s sovereignty seems to be the only apologetic for defending classical Calvinism. It’s about all you can say to the harsh realities of TULIP. But is sovereignty really God’s foremost characteristic? Arminians, of course, disagree. Typically they will say, ‘God is love’. There is truth in both statements but I don’t believe either of them is the fundamental thing we should be defending. After reading both the Old and New Testaments I find God’s fundamental and foremost characteristic is holiness. God is holy. In other words, He is absolutely pure, He is 100% good. His love, His sovereignty, everything He does flows from His holiness, His righteousness, His goodness.
As someone who is interested in apologetics I believe my number one duty is to defend the goodness of God. The majority of the objections I receive to Christianity are rooted in this issue. This is what so many ‘would-be’ Christians have a problem with; for some reason or another they don’t believe God is totally good. And on this misunderstanding they reject Christianity. Some people even use it as a basis for their atheism. It’s true to say the goodness of God is under constant attack. The Calvinist interpretation of ‘Unconditional election’ and ‘Limited atonement’ make it almost impossible to defend God as being good. These views may seem pious when discussed in a theological setting but when they are applied existentially they become quite ugly. Let me illustrate.
One of my favourite charities is Compassion. Child sponsorship makes a major difference in the life of a child. It is the only way many of these children in third-world countries can escape the poverty-stricken life they were born into. But as good as Compassion’s intention is, their resources only allow them to save a limited number of children. The sad fact is by electing some for sponsorship they have inadvertently damned others. It’s a painful scenario, especially when dealing with starvation issues. But let’s say Compassion lacked no resources, be it people, supplies or money, and they still only chose a limited number of children. Would you consider them to be a good charity? I know I wouldn’t support them anymore. Electing to limit whom they save for no reason other than demonstrating their power does not elevate the name of their organisation or make those saved feel more secure. If I were one of the elect and knew Compassion lacked no resources, I’m sure I would be asking why my brother and sister couldn’t be saved too.
It’s easy to see the similarity between us and un-sponsored children. We are poverty-stricken sinners. There is no hope for us. We cannot save ourselves. On the other hand, God is like Compassion. He came to us from another place. He rescued us from the ominous predicament we were born into. But why should He, as the Calvinist believes, limit His saving grace? Does God lack resources? I think not. He lacks nothing. I am not questioning God’s right as all-powerful creator to do anything He wants. But if He can save ‘the world’ and chooses not to, what does that say about His character?
Sovereignly limiting salvation in this way does not support God’s fundamental character quality. God is good; that’s why we can trust His love and feel secure in His sovereignty. ‘Will not the Judge of all the earth do right?’ it says in Genesis 18:25. I cannot see how it is possible to reconcile classical Calvinism with God’s total goodness. There must be other reasons why some are chosen and others are not, why some follow to the end and others don’t.
It would be foolish for me or an Arminian to try to deny the sovereignty of God in the salvation process. The truth is, it was not my choice to know God. I was not looking for Jesus. It was He who found me. I would have just kept on living the life of a sinner if God hadn’t intervened in my world. This is no new thing. In the Gospels Jesus takes this same sovereign approach when gathering His disciples (followers). Jesus personally found Peter and Andrew down by the Sea of Galilee (Matt 4:18) and Matthew at the tax office (Matt 9:9) but it was what He said to them that changed their lives. When Jesus said, ‘Follow me’ the human will became part of the equation. If Jesus had said, ‘you will follow me’ I would, without a doubt, be a 5-point Calvinist. But it didn’t happen that way and whether we like it or not our free-will is somewhere in the mix. There is a real interaction between the sovereign will of God and mankind’s ability to make effective decisions.
Some people cannot accept this sovereign mix of wills and incorrectly apply the law of non-contradiction. The Arminian believes in ‘more power to ya’, it’s all about our decisions. And the Calvinist believes there is only the sovereign will of God. Which one is it? I do not believe this is the correct approach as this is not about two opposing sides. It’s about something Biblical theology is no stranger to - truth in tension. Truth in tension occurs when God joins in perfect union two seemingly conflicting ideas. The result is a complete, balanced truth that guards itself against extremes. Truth in tension requires us to acknowledge both sides in order to appreciate and understand it. The incarnation of Christ is a perfect example of truth in tension.
Was Jesus fully God or was He fully man? You can’t be a man if you are God and you can’t be God if you are a man. But the complete truth about Jesus Christ is He was both! And unless we accept both, Jesus will remain an enigma to us, as will half the things He did and said, including the cross. When people expound on the deity of Christ they are not wrong in doing so, and neither is the one who acknowledges His humanity. It is when we minimise one side in favour of the other that we become unbalanced and lose the complete truth about our Creator and Saviour. The Bible contains ‘Calvinist’ scriptures and ‘Arminian’ scriptures, but in order to get a complete picture we must acknowledge both as important. This principle is not just restricted to theology either. Science has revealed that light is both a particle and a wave. These are seemingly conflicting ideas, but to appreciate the truth about light we must recognise both.
I have gleaned so much and benefited greatly from opening my heart and mind to both sides. My study of Calvinism has helped me appreciate the sovereignty of God more and brought a sense of security to my salvation. It guards me from prosperity-possessed, humanistic Christianity. It’s not all about me, and my wealth, and the power of my decisions. The Arminian perspective, on the other hand, helped me see that we offer God something unique that can only come via a free-will – our love. My love must be mine, not someone else’s, in order to be real. I don’t believe Christianity is all about God loving Himself back through us. If all your lover did was repeat the words you gave them to say, you could hardly claim to have a love relationship. But I believe that is what Christianity is all about - a love relationship with our Creator and Saviour, and it is a free-will that causes it to come alive.
Is God sovereign? Absolutely! Can our choices have eternal consequences? You better believe it! It’s not a matter of choosing one. It is about appreciating both sides. In doing so we will enrich our faith and bring balance to our thinking.