Once upon a time, orthodox Christians wore historical labels (such as Calvinism/Arminianism) so they could quickly identify their specific beliefs in a particular area of Biblical theology. And while the debate between Arminianism and Calvinism has always been passionate, it’s only been a fairly recent phenomenon that someone is viewed as a bloodthirsty heretic for disagreement in this area. Take, for example, this excerpt from the journal of Charles Simeon (A Calvinist) writing about his correspondence with John Wesley (an Arminian). The following excerpt is dated December 10th, 1784.
"Sir, I understand that you are called an Arminian; and I have been sometimes called a Calvinist; and therefore I suppose we are to draw daggers. But before I consent to begin the combat, with your permission I will ask you a few questions.... Pray, Sir, do you feel yourself a depraved creature, so depraved that you would never have thought of turning to God, if God had not first put it into your heart?" "Yes," says the veteran, "I do indeed." `And do you utterly despair of recommending yourself to God by anything you can do; and look for salvation solely through the blood and righteousness of Christ?" "Yes, solely through Christ." "But, Sir, supposing you were at first saved by Christ, are you not somehow or other to save yourself afterwards by your own works?" "No, I must be saved by Christ from first to last." "Allowing, then, that you were first turned by the grace of God, are you not in some way or other to keep yourself by your own power?" "No." "What, then, are you to be upheld every hour and every moment by God, as much as an infant in its mother's arms?" "Yes, altogether." 'And is all your hope in the grace and mercy of God to preserve you unto his heavenly kingdom?" "Yes, I have no hope but in him." "Then, Sir, with your leave I will put up my dagger again; for this is all my Calvinism; this is my election, my justification by faith, my final perseverance: it is in substance all that I hold, and as I hold it; and therefore, if you please, instead of searching out terms and phrases to be a ground of contention between us, we will cordially unite in those things wherein we agree."
Sadly, the days of Christian unity and brotherly love in this arena are over, at least in large swaths of Independent Baptist churches, of which I am a part. These historical labels are now used to identify and hunt down brothers and sisters in Christ. In fact, what sparked this blog (and the coming blog series) was a rabidly anti-Calvinist Facebook rant (it was more like a small novel) from a fellow IFB pastor. There were so many strawmen, red herrings, oversimplifications, and patently false statements that I lost count of them all. However, the final straw for me was the slander and character assassination of our brothers in Christ. The Facebook rant opens by saying,
“My assessment is that Calvinism is rooted in pride. Let the reader beware of feeling as if you are of the elite elect while the rest are destined for hell. Below I believe you will find a compelling scriptural and logical argument against Reformed Theology and the view in which it paints God.”
In the second paragraph, he goes on to call Calvinists “dishonest” and “crooked as a dog’s hind leg” (more on this later). So right out of the gate, this brother (who I believe to be a good brother) calls all Calvinists everywhere “proud,” “dishonest,” and “crooked.” Broadbrushing aside, this language should be reserved for the worst kind of heretics, not our brothers in Christ.
God hates “a false witness that speaketh lies, and he that soweth discord among brethren.” (Proverbs 6:19). We ought to hate this kind of thing as well. We ought to love our brothers in Christ more than our hobby horses, or likes and amens on a Facebook rant.
For this reason, over the next several weeks, I plan to write a blog series where I walk through this brother’s Facebook post and expose the errors therein (yes, I did reach out to him and let him know beforehand). I’m not picking on this brother in particular. To be fair to him, these errors are far too prevalent in the IFB. I’m just tired of it. I’m tired of good brothers getting slandered. On a personal level, I’m also tired of being falsely labeled and criticized for things that I don’t even believe. I’ve been asked numerous times if I am a Calvinist (that’s if they have the decency to ask me instead of slandering me behind my back). 100% of the time, this is how the conversation has gone. “Pastor Vaughan, I have heard some disturbing things, and I want to ask, are you a Calvinist?” “Let’s be really careful to define that term. Tell me what a Calvinist believes and I will tell you whether or not I’m a Calvinist.” The person then goes on to define Calvinism, to which I always reply, “If that is what Calvinism teaches, then I am definitely not a Calvinist and would strongly oppose it.”
Weaponized ignorance always hurts people, even if done with good intentions (I’ve been guilty of it more times than I care to admit, and for that I am ashamed.) Even if we are truly combating heretics, we should at least have the decency and work ethic to find out and combat what they actually believe. I am a pastor in the Mormon Mecca of Northern Utah. I try my best to conduct thorough research to understand what the LDS actually believe, rather than pursuing the low-hanging fruit and straw men. Shouldn’t we extend the same courtesy to our brothers and sisters in Christ?
The goal of this blog series is to try to educate and unify the body of Christ in this area of soteriology (feeble as my efforts may be). To be clear, my purpose is not to defend Calvinism (or Arminianism for that matter) but to at least make people aware of where both sides are coming from. My desire is not to champion historical labels (although I want to be intellectually honest about where my beliefs land). When I die, I hope to be remembered as a Christian.
Each week, I will expose a different straw man in an effort to keep the blog relatively short (this week's entry will be longer due to the introduction). It would be impossible to critique the entire Facebook post, but I will highlight the key points. All I ask is for honest reflection on the facts presented, and a resistance to the urge to react emotionally. I will do my best to be respectful and reasonable. With that said, let’s dive into strawman #1.
Strawman #1: “I’m not a Calvinist or an Arminian, I just believe the Bible.” The strawman being the supposed false dichotomy
The second paragraph of the Facebook post reads,
“First of all, the Calvinists are dishonest and crooked as a dog’s hind leg to give the false dichotomy that there are only two options: Calvinism and Arminianism. There is a third category. Christians. True Bible believers.”
If I had a nickel for every time I have heard this in the IFB (or how many times I've said it in the past), I would be a rich man. It sounds great on paper, but a little digging will reveal this to be a false statement and a cop-out. The problem is that the term “biblicist” on its face is a meaningless term. Calvinists, Arminians, and so-called middle grounders all claim to be biblicists, but all of these beliefs must be examined by what the Bible actually says. Therefore, the term “biblicist” must be immediately defined and defended, which will reveal historical leanings.
It is true that someone doesn’t have to be a five-point Calvinist or a five-point Arminian. However, it is also true that whatever we believe biblically about these individual points concerning salvation will fit into a historical camp somewhere. It’s unavoidable. Listen to these words from Arminian author, Dr. Roger Olson (for whom I have great respect).
“The plain fact of the matter is that on certain points classical Calvinism and classical Arminianism simply disagree, and no bridge uniting them can be found; no hybrid of the two can be created. Calvinism can be seen as the middle ground between fatalism and synergism; Arminianism can be seen as the middle ground between semi-Pelagianism and Calvinism. But between Calvinism and Arminianism there is no mutual compatibility. Logic will always force a person to go one way or the other. Of course, if we do not care about logic, then we inhabit an artificially constructed Calminian house built on sand. But it will be ravaged by the harsh questions of logic and common sense. Is election of individuals to salvation conditional or unconditional? If we answer “I don’t know,” no Calminian hybrid exists. But if we respond “Both,” where is the middle ground? How do we logically combine conditional and unconditional? The same questions could be posed to the Calminian view of atonement and grace. Does God intend Christ’s atoning death to save everyone or only some? If we answer that God intends to save all but knows only some will be saved, we are Arminians! If we answer that God intends to save only some even though it is sufficient to save all, we are Calvinists! Almost all the clever responses of Calminianism to such questions end up being Calvinistic or Arminian. Is saving grace resistible or irresistible? Is it always effectual, or can it be rejected? Where is the middle ground? Once the Calminian begins clarifying and qualifying, he or she inevitably reveals either Calvinist or Arminian colors.” (Arminian Theology: Myths and Realities by Roger E. Olson, p. 68).
Let’s hash out Olson’s claim by lining up the infamous 5 points of Calvinism with the lesser-known 5 points of Arminianism (also known as the 5 points of Remonstrants).
Calvinism
1. Total Depravity (While the opportunity for salvation is available to all who hear the gospel, because of man’s sinful state, he would never desire God apart from grace, thus he is unable within himself to respond positively to the gospel message).
2. Unconditional Election (God, in His grace, chose a multitude of unworthy sinners before the foundation of the world to be a bride for His Son, salvation in other words).
3. Limited Atonement (while there is debate on this point among Calvinists [to be hashed out in a later blog], the historic moderate Calvinist interpretation is that while the blood of Christ is sufficient to save all, the inent of the cross is that Christ died to redeem His bride who was given to Him by the Father, the effect being that His death actually redeemed the elect).
4. Irresistible Grace (If God calls a sinner by His Grace, they will respond positively to the gospel)
5. Perserverance of the Saints (Through the grace of God, Christians will remain faithful to God [not flawlessly] and never ultimately fall away)
Arminianism
1. Total Depravity (Which is overcome by prevenient grace available to all, which = free will).
2. Conditional election (God looked down the corridors of time to see who would choose Him, and chose them as a result. This is known as the prescient view).
3. Unlimited atonement (Christ died equally for all, and therefore, all have equal opportunity to be saved).
4. Resistible Grace (God’s grace can be resisted)
5. Conditional Preservation (Although a Christian can’t lose their salvation, like one loses their car keys, they can ultimately turn away from God if they choose, losing their salvation in the process).
Here is the point Olson is driving at, and this is the Achilles' heel for someone who wants to boast about being just a “biblicist.” They are going to have to answer the following questions, Biblically speaking:
1. What is the middle ground between total depravity and free will?
2. What is the middle ground between Unconditional and Conditional Election?
3. What is the middle ground between limited and unlimited atonement?
4. What is the middle ground between irresistible and resistible grace?
5. What is the middle ground between eternal security and the possibility of being able to lose one’s salvation?
Once someone puts down their cop-out cliches and “begins clarifying and qualifying, he or she inevitably reveals either Calvinist or Arminian colors.” This is a great time to point out that I have NEVER seen or heard of an IFB pastor go on a witch hunt concerning Arminianism. This is because most of the rabid anti-Calvies are 4-point Arminians and don’t even know it (the exception being #5). Our dear brother, even in his FB post, admitted as much:
1. “God did not decree for the majority of the world to be unable to believe. God never created a man to be human fire kindling. Calvinism states that man is so totally depraved that he will not and can not accept Christ. Because of the sin of Adam God decreed that man could only hate and despise God and his pleas/ appeals to come to Him. Therefore people end up in hell by reasons beyond their control. Calvin said they are destined for destruction. They are doomed from the womb. Does that really sound like a message of hope? Is that the good news, how that God created the majority of mankind without any possible solution or responsibility to trust Him and deemed them for eternal fire? If you believe that garbage, then you believe God is responsible for man’s unbelief. You can not say man is responsible and at the same time claim total depravity as to how God created man. Did the God who created man in His own image create them to be destroyed?” In other words, man has free will to choose Christ (Arminianism)
2. “The message of Calvinism is not hope. Its message is only hope for the elite, the pre chosen, the pre determined, the elect. Before you get on your high horse, you need to understand something about the elect. The elect and chosen one is The Lord Jesus Christ. You are elect when you are in Christ. Jesus is the way to election. Those who are saved by Grace through faith are elect.” In other words, God chose you because you chose Christ (Arminianism).
3. “The cross demonstrated His great love for humanity.” In other words, Christ died equally for all (Arminianism).
4. “Bible believers, though, see it as the Bible does. Man has a responsibility to accept or reject the Lord Jesus Christ. What you do with the Elect One will determine what God does with you! The choice is yours. You have that responsibility. You have the ability to confess your need as a sinner and put your faith in Christ Jesus.” In other words, God’s saving grace can be accepted or rejected (Arminianism).
5. “Bible believers are not Arminian. We do not believe salvation can be lost. We are kept by His power. We are saved by Him and eternally secure by Him.” (Calvinism)
I recognize that in the end, the only thing that matters is that we are correct Biblically. But tell me again how your Biblical beliefs somehow completely avoid historical Arminianism and Calvinism? This raises another question that needs to be addressed. What is the historical label for someone who believes in a middle ground position between Arminianism and Calvinism? It doesn’t exist. By claiming to be a “biblicist,” you are saying that what you believe is original, like this subject was never carefully thought out in the past by great theological minds. As if men like Jonathan Edwards and John Wesley were too stupid to figure out that heralded middle ground. If only some of our IFB brethren could travel back in time and inform those poor, ignorant souls, perhaps all of this could be sorted out by now.
This article has already gotten longer than I intended. I would just like to request a substantive argument in response to the facts and questions I have presented. If you can’t answer these questions, then perhaps you should reconsider claiming to be a biblicist. It’s claiming a position without claiming a position. I know who I am and where I stand, and if asked, I will gladly own my historical leanings for each individual point. What about you?
The truth is that while the gospel message is so simple that a child can understand, the subject of how God’s sovereignty and the free agency of man work together is a deep thing. We are much more likely to oversimplify the issue than we are to overcomplicate it. This is why we must approach this topic with caution and extend grace to our brothers and sisters in Christ who may not share our exact perspective. (You can read part II here).
