Bad Arguments Against Calvinism

1. Calvinism destroys the necessity of evangelism. After all, why evangelize anyone if only the elect are going to be saved?

A. Regardless of whether the Calvinist can provide theological or philosophical answers to this objection or not (which we can), the fact remains that we are to do so because Christ has commanded it (Matthew 28:19-20). For the Calvinist (or any believer for that matter), this reason is more than sufficient.

B. As predestinarian as the apostle Paul was (Romans 8:29-30; Galatians 1:15-16; Ephesians 1:4-5,11; 1 Thessalonians 1:4; 2 Thessalonians 2:13-14; 2 Timothy 1:9), he never neglected his responsibility to proclaim the Gospel to all people (Romans 1:13-16; 10:1; 1 Corinthians 9:16,19-23). Even still, he tells us that he “endures all things for the sake of those who are chosen” (2 Timothy 2:10). This demonstrates that God’s divine purpose in election does not rule out our responsibility to preach the Gospel of Jesus Christ to all nations --- for He has purposed to redeem “men from every tribe and tongue and people and nation” (Revelation 5:9; see also John 11:51-52; Acts 18:10).

C. It is important to remember that evangelism is the very means whereby the elect are saved. Thus, it is imperative that Calvinists proclaim the Gospel to all people --- particularly since we do not know who the elect are merely by appearance.

D. The Arminian is actually in the same boat as the Calvinist, for he also believes that we should seek to evangelize people whom God knows will never come to a saving faith. If this doesn’t nullify the Arminian’s attempt to evangelize all men, why should it do so for the Calvinist?

2. Calvinism destroys the notion of individual responsibility or “free will.” Why should we call men to repentance if they are not free or able to respond?

A. In spite of the apparent tension between divine sovereignty and human responsibility, the Bible clearly teaches both (Luke 9:43-45; John 5:39-40; 6:44,65; Acts 2:22-23; 4:27-28; 1 Peter 2:7-8; 1 John 4:19).

B. The Arminian notion of “free will” is a myth. One could only maintain this popular view by first ignoring the numerous passages which declare man’s spiritual inability and bondage to sin (Jeremiah 13:23; 17:9; John 3:19; 6:44,65; 8:34; Acts 13:39; 16:14; 26:18; Romans 3:9-18; 6:6,17-18,20-22; 8:6-8; 1 Corinthians 2:14; 2 Corinthians 4:3-4; Ephesians 2:1-3; 4:17-19; Colossians 2:13; 2 Timothy 2:24-26; 1 John 5:19). It must be made clear that when the Calvinist denies the idea of “free will,” he’s not denying that humans make conscious choices. The unregenerate do, in fact, have a relative amount of freedom in which they make decisions according to their nature (and even this is sovereignly controlled by God!). We are only denying that they can make a choice to follow Christ anytime they so will --- apart from the efficacious grace of the Holy Spirit. Not only do they lack the ability to do so in their own strength (Jeremiah 13:23; John 6:44; 2 Timothy 2:24-26), but they lack the motivation or necessary desire to genuinely believe (John 3:19). Such rebels and haters of God should hardly be expected to exercise a saving faith in the very One that they despise!

C. The notion that it’s futile to call men to repentance because of their spiritual inability, does not logically follow. Using the same line of reasoning, should we absolve the kleptomaniac because he has an insatiable compulsion to steal everything in sight? Should we call him to turn from such sinful behavior, in spite of his inherent desire to rob others from their possessions, or should we ignore the problem entirely because it’s so deeply rooted in his nature? What about alcoholics or habitual adulterers? Why should we hold them accountable for their actions if they, likewise, are unable to break the cycle of such sins? The answer lies in the recognition that, in spite of their internal compulsions, humans are still responsible and ultimately accountable for their behavior. The same applies in the spiritual realm. Thus, notwithstanding the moral inability of man to do that which is pleasing in the sight of their Creator (Genesis 6:5-6,11-12; Ecclesiastes 7:20; John 3:19; Romans 3:9-18),God still holds them responsible for their thoughts and deeds (Romans 2:6,16; Revelation 22:12).God does not lower His ethical standards to accommodate human sinfulness and inability. The Ten Commandments, for example, demands complete and perfect obedience, yet God never reduced man’s obligation to fully comply with all that it declared simply because he is enslaved to sin.

It is important to remember as well that a knowledge of human inability should induce us to seek the liberating grace of Christ so that He, on our behalf, might break the shackles of sin and, thereby, free us to serve God in obedience --- as opposed to wrongly assuming that either men are not as depraved as the Bible says or that God is unjust for condemning men while existing in a state of spiritual helplessness.

D. Finally, it might be helpful to point out that even the ability to repent and exercise faith in Christ must be granted by God (Acts 5:31; 11:18; 16:14; 18:27; Philippians 1:29) since, left to ourselves, we will only “receive the grace of God in vain” (1 Corinthians 15:2; 2 Corinthians 6:2). Thus, what God demands (namely, repentance and faith), He also supplies.

3. Are the “five points of Calvinism” the same as “Hyper-Calvinism”? Isn’t believing the “five points” an extreme form of Calvinism?

A. The “five points of Calvinism” which emerged from the Synod of Dort in 1618 should not be confused with “Hyper-Calvinism.” In brief, “Hyper-Calvinism” denies that the Gospel should be preached to all men universally. For any preacher to give the impression that all men are called to repent and believe on the Lord Jesus, is to deny, in the opinion of Hyper-Calvinists, the sovereignty of divine grace. “It is,” as Iain Murray points out, “to represent salvation as available to those whom God has excluded by the decree of election. Gospel preaching for Hyper-Calvinists means a declaration of the fact of the Gospel but nothing should be said by way of encouraging individuals to believe that the promises of Christ are made to them particularly until there is evidence that the Spirit of God has begun a saving work in their hearts, convicting them and making them ‘sensible’ of their need . . . Hyper-Calvinists argued that Gospel promises and invitations cannot be made universal because saving grace is special and particular” (Spurgeon V. Hyper-Calvinism [Banner of Truth Trust, 1995] pp.69-70). This is a far cry from historic Reformation theology which rightly taught that the Gospel invitation should be urgently proclaimed to all men --- regardless of whether they are showing signs of the Spirit’s convicting work or not. This is not to deny that some men who have embraced the “five points” have also accepted a Hyper-Calvinistic perspective, but only that the two should not be confused as the same articles of belief.

Moreover, the “five points” should not be understood as an “extreme” form of Calvinism --- as if historic or traditional Calvinism did not embrace them --- since each of the so-called “five points” can be traced to the writings of John Calvin himself (see Paul Helm, Calvin and the Calvinists [Banner of Truth Trust, 1982] and Roger Nicole, “John Calvin’s View on the Extent of the Atonement,” Westminster Theological Journal [47, 1985]).

B. Many staunch Calvinists (e.g.,Charles Spurgeon) have publicly opposed Hyper-Calvinism which, at least, helps to demonstrate that the “five points” were not necessarily equated with a Hyper-Calvinistic view. It appears that those who confuse the “five points” with Hyper-Calvinism are usually the least informed of the differences which exist between them.

4. Doesn’t such passages as Matthew 23:37 and Acts 7:51 indicate that God’s will in salvation may be resisted? Doesn’t the Calvinistic doctrine of “Irresistible Grace” picture God as coercing people into the kingdom of heaven against their wills? In fact, according to Norman Geisler in his book, Chosen, But Free, the problem with “Irresistible Grace” is that “there is no informed consent . . . . the patients are dragged kicking and screaming into the operating room” (p.97).

A. Historic Calvinism has never taught that people are “coerced” into the kingdom of heaven “against their wills.” Instead, their hearts are sovereignly opened so that they willingly respond to the Gospel call (Acts 16:14). It is in the exercise of both the Father (James 1:18; John 6:44) and Son’s (Matthew 11:27; John 5:21) will that we are brought to new life --- and we must always be grateful that God has taken this initiative since, left to ourselves, we would never come (Romans 3:11).“But, even if this is true,” reasons the Arminian, “wouldn’t it still be an instance of God imposing his will upon us?” Yes, it would --- and what a glorious imposition! As Creator and Sovereign Ruler over all that He has made, He possesses the right to do with His creatures whatever He wishes (Isaiah 46:9-11; Daniel 4:35) --- which includes graciously redeeming rebellious Law-breakers and converting them into God-loving saints (Luke 19:10; Titus 2:14). If God, apart from man’s counsel, has already determined both when and where humans would live (Job 14:5; Psalm 139:16; Acts 17:26), then why does it not also follow that He has the right to spiritually regenerate those whom He desires without their prior consent or permission (John 1:12-13; Romans 9:15-22)? Moreover, if God has indeed given Christ “authority over all mankind, that to all whom Thou hast given Him, He may give eternal life” (John 17:2), why we would ever question His right to sovereignly intervene and raise us to new life? This is, indeed, one of the many beautiful truths of salvation: He has graciously given to us that which we neither desired nor deserved!

B. Arminians may despise the notion that God sovereignly conquers our wills in salvation, but the Bible records numerous examples where God over-ruled the decisions of men to accomplish His divine purpose. For instance, was the prophet Jonah ultimately free to disobey God’s call to preach to Nineveh? Did Paul have any say-so in his salvation and apostleship (Acts 9:1-16; 26:9-18)? Were any of these men previously consulted or genuinely free to counter God’s mission for their lives? If not, why should we imagine that He must defer to our so-called “free will” in order to redeem us? The problem in the Arminian’s thinking is not ultimately rooted in the antinomy between divine sovereignty and human responsibility, but in the character and prerogatives of the One who created us.

C. Calvinists have never denied that unregenerate men and women can resist the external or outward call of the Holy Spirit (via the preacher or evangelist), but only that they cannot resist the internal or efficacious call of God’s Spirit unto salvation --- for as Loraine Boettner has aptly declared, “The cause of any person believing is the will of God; and the outward sound of the Gospel strikes the ear but in vain until God is pleased to touch the heart within” (The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination, p.359).Thus, when we read such passages as Matthew 23:37 and Acts 7:51, we should interpret them as instances of men obstinately rejecting the outward call of the Spirit unto repentance and faith.

5. Romans 2:11 says that God is not a respecter of persons, yet doesn’t Calvinism contradict this when it teaches that God chooses some persons for salvation and not others? In other words, how can God not be partial or arbitrary when He elects some people and not others?

A. The point of Romans 2:11 is not whether God has chosen some for redemption and not others based upon His good pleasure and sovereign plan (that is more adequately dealt with in Romans 9), but whether Jews, simply because they are the physical descendents of Abraham and possess the Mosaic Law, will escape God’s righteous judgment. Paul’s answer is that neither Jewish hypocrisy (Romans 2:1-3, 17-27) nor Gentile idolatry (Romans 1:18-32) will be exempt from divine condemnation --- for He has promised to “render to every man according to his deeds” (Romans 2:6). Thus, Paul reasons, God will not show partiality in judgment (Romans 2:11; see also Deuteronomy 10:17; Acts 10:34-35), as if He would somehow ignore the sins of a Jew by virtue of his Jewishness! For Paul, this would impugn the holy character of God as well as make a mockery of His Law which demands perfect obedience (see Galatians 3:10-12) --- “For all who have sinned without the Law [i.e., Gentiles] will also perish without the Law; and all who have sinned under the Law [i.e., Jews] will be judged by the Law” (Romans 2:12). Therefore, since neither the Jew obeys perfectly what the Law requires nor does the Gentile live in conformity to the light that’s available to him in creation, they both stand condemned and equally in need of Christ’s redemptive work (Romans 3:9-18; 10:11-13). We see, then, that Romans 2:11 is not addressing the question of God’s electing purpose in saving some and not others, but in whether He will show partiality or favoritism in judgment. Quite obviously, He will not.

B. It is important to note that in divine election, God does not (to use the terms of our Arminian brothers) show “partiality” or “favoritism.” That is to say, He does not choose one person over another because they are rich or poor; educated or illiterate; or any other reason which is circumstantial or inherent within man. Rather, we are told that it is “according to the kind intention of His will” (Ephesians 1:5), “according to the riches of His grace” (Ephesians 1:7); “according to His kind intention” (Ephesians 1:9). While there may be additional reasons, known only to God Himself, for redeeming some and by-passing others, we can rest assured that such reasons are not conditioned upon man’s will or foreseen faith. Returning, once again, to the character and prerogatives of God, “Does not the potter have a right over the clay, to make from the same lump one vessel for honorable use, and another for common use?” (Romans 9:21). If God chooses one unworthy sinner over another, doesn’t He have the right to do so --- especially since none of us deserves His saving mercy in the first place?

6. Within the pages of the New Testament, we find many “warning passages” which warn Christians from falling into apostasy or turning away from the Lord. But why should there be any warnings at all if, as Calvinists argue, a true Christian can never lose his salvation? In other words, what would be the purpose of warning Christians against something which could not possibly take place?

A. Before delving into the purpose of “warning” passages, it is important to first scripturally establish the truth of Calvinism’s fifth point: “The Perseverance of the Saints.” It has been popularly labeled, “Once Saved, Always Saved,” but this is perhaps not the best term since it has been wrongly interpreted as suggesting that Christians can habitually indulge in sin and yet remain in Christ. The truth is, although Christians may sin (and even engage in gross sins at times), they do not remain in a continual state of sin and disobedience. Or, to put it another way, they do not habitually practice sin as a lifestyle --- for "No one who is born of God practices sin, because His seed abides in him; and he cannot sin, because he is born of God. By this the children of God and the children of the devil are obvious: anyone who does not practice righteousness is not of God, nor the one who does not love his brother” (1 John 3:9-10). Thus, it is not so much the perfection of one’s life, but the direction of one’s life which ultimately proves the validity of any Christian profession. The best term is still “Perseverance of the Saints” or the “Preservation of the Saints.” Both of them sufficiently summarize what the Calvinist is attempting to teach. Labels aside, the New Testament is replete with passages which clearly declare the impossibility of a genuine believer losing his salvation or ultimately abandoning the Christian faith (Matthew 18:12-14; John 6:37-40; 10:27-29; 17:11-15; Romans 8:1, 29-30, 35-39; 1 Corinthians 1:7-9; Ephesians 1:4-14; 4:30; 1 Thessalonians 5:23-24; Hebrews 9:12-15; 10:14; 12:28; 1 Peter 1:3-5; 1 John 5:4,11-13,20; Jude v.1,24). Admittedly, there are “problem” passages (as with most doctrines revealed in the Bible) which appear to teach that a believer can “fall from grace,” but these have been exegetically answered in numerous books and commentaries written by Reformed scholars (see, for example, Robert L. Reymond, A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith [Thomas Nelson, 1998]; John Gill, The Cause of God & Truth [Baker Book House Reprint, 1980]; and Loraine Boettner, The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination [Presbyterian & Reformed, 1963]).

B. Loraine Boettner, we believe, has provided sound reasons why Scripture contains many “warning” passages directed toward believers:

The primary purpose of these passages, however, is to induce men to cooperate willingly with God for the accomplishment of His purposes. They are inducements which produce constant humility, watchfulness, and diligence. In the same way a parent, in order to get the willing cooperation of a child, may tell it to stay out of the way of an approaching automobile, when all the time the parent has no intention of ever letting the child get into a position where it would be injured. When God plies a soul with fears of falling it is by no means a proof that God in His secret purpose intends to permit him to fall. These fears may be the very means which God has designed to keep him from falling. Secondly, God’s exhortations to duty are perfectly consistent with His purpose to give sufficient grace for the performance of these duties. In one place we are commanded to love the Lord our God with all our heart; in another, God says, ‘I will put My Spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes.’ Now either these must be consistent with each other, or the Holy Spirit must contradict Himself. Plainly it is not the latter. Thirdly, these warnings are, even for believers, incitements to greater faith and prayer. Fourthly, they are designed to show man his duty rather than his ability, and his weakness rather than his strength. Fifthly, they convince men of their want of holiness and of their dependence upon God. And, sixthly, they serve as restraints on unbelievers, and leave them without excuse (The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination, pp.195-196).

7. Doesn’t the Calvinistic teaching of “Limited Atonement” contradict numerous passages in the New Testament which speak of Christ dying for the “world,” “all men,” or even the “whole world”? Isn’t the Calvinist guilty of forcing his theological grid upon Scripture and twisting the natural sense of these passages in order to make them fit into his system?

A. One of the most basic rules of biblical interpretation (hermeneutics) is that the meaning of a word is determined by its surrounding context. We need to be certain that we do not commit the fallacy of a concordance interpretation which wrongly assumes that because a word or phrase means something in one particular passage, it must, therefore, have the same meaning in every other occurrence. Arminians are frequently guilty of committing this error because they come to the biblical record with a preconception that the terms “all” or “world” cannot mean anything other than all of humanity and, thus, do not closely look at its various usages within Scripture.

In most cases where the terms “all” or “world” are employed, it is very difficult to press them as meaning all humans without exception, for not only would universal redemption be proved, but so would universal salvation (a conclusion no evangelical Arminian would favor). Thus, the Arminian’s argument proves too much and demonstrates their failure to discern the soteriological implications of their interpretations.

There is an overwhelming number of examples in the New Testament where such phrases as “all,” “all men,” “world,” or “whole world” are used in a restricted sense and cannot be interpreted to mean the whole of humanity (Matthew 10:22; Mark 1:5; Luke 1:21; John 1:10; 12:19; Acts 2:17; 10:12; Romans 1:8; 11:26; 1 John 5:19; Revelation 3:10; 12:9; 13:3). This is not to deny that such terms may, in some instances, denote all men universally. Each usage, however, should be determined by its context and the meaning which the writer assigns to it.

Perhaps someone will inquire why the New Testament writers used these terms if they did not intend to imply all men universally? The answer is discovered in remembering that God, in prior generations, “permitted all the nations to go their own ways” (Acts 14:16). While some Gentiles came to a saving knowledge of the true God, most did not. However, with the arrival of Jesus Christ, this was to change. Salvation would now extend beyond the borders of Israel into the “remotest part of the earth” (Acts 1:8; Matthew 28:19; Luke 24:47). Even during the ministry of our Lord, there was a conscious effort to reach out to those not normally associated with the Jewish people (Matthew 8:5-13; John 4:1-39; 10:16).

At first, it was difficult for the early Christians, who were all Jews, to perceive God’s intention to save a multitude of Gentiles (Acts 10:34-35, 44-45; 11:1-3,18; 13:47-49; 14:27; 15:1-29), but within time, they came to realize that both groups would be united into one people (Ephesians 2:11-22). With this new understanding, which Paul calls a “mystery” because it was not fully “made known to the sons of men” (Ephesians 3:3-6), came distinctive theological terms. In order to express the reality of salvation in its international aspect, the New Testament writers wisely employed terms such as “all men” and “world.” But mark this: they did not do so for the purpose of suggesting that all men would be saved nor to imply that Christ died a substitutionary death for each and every person. Rather, it was to signify the international or ethnological aspect of God’s redemptive purpose to save “men from every tribe and tongue and people and nation” (Revelation 5:9; 7:9; see also John 10:16; 11:51-52). Thus, it is not all men without exception, but all men without distinction of race, nation, status, or tongue (i.e., all types or classes of men irrespective of their pedigree or national origin).

B. The objection naively assumes that only the Calvinist has a theological system, whereas the Arminian is supposedly free from any grid or philosophical framework. But whether Arminians wish to admit it or not, they too have presuppositions and a particular grid from which they filter various opinions or interpretations of the Bible. The real issue, then, is not whether Calvinists or Arminians have a theological system (they do), but which of the two competing systems best comports with the over-all teaching of Scripture. We are persuaded that Calvinistic soteriology makes the most sense of all the Scriptural data and is, in fact, the biblical position. For those interested in more specific answers to the biblical texts relating to “Limited Atonement,” see John Owen, The Death of Death [Banner of Truth Trust Reprint, 1959], Gary Long, Definite Atonement [Backus Books, 1977], and Tom Wells, A Price For A People [Banner of Truth Trust, 1992].

8. In 1 Peter 1:2, it says that we are “elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father.” Wouldn’t this indicate that God looked into human history and chose people because He first foresaw that they would choose Christ --- and therefore, on that basis, He chose them?

A. 1 Peter 1:2 (along with Romans 8:29) is commonly cited by Arminians to prove that divine election is conditioned upon foreseen faith. They reason that if God chooses a man to eternal life, it is only because the man first chose God. Foreseeing or foreknowing that of his own free will he would do so, God elected him unto salvation. There are, however, numerous problems with this interpretation. Please consider the following points.

First, according to the Bible, if God was to foresee anything in humans, He would only see moral debauchery and disobedience to His Law (Psalm 14:1-3; Ephesians 2:1-3; 4:17-19).

Secondly, man, in his natural state, does not seek God (Romans 3:11) --- for “men love darkness rather than light” (John 3:19). This is, perhaps, one of the major problems with the Arminian interpretation: it fails to seriously grapple with the extent of human depravity as explicitly revealed in many verses in both the Old and New Testaments (Job 14:1; 15:14-16; Jeremiah 17:9; 13:23; John 8:34; Romans 1:18-32; 8:6-8; 1 Corinthians 2:14; 2 Corinthians 4:3-4).

Thirdly, the Arminian interpretation is out of harmony with the many passages which declare that salvation is all of grace or God’s doing (Matthew 11:27; John 1:12-13; 5:21; 6:44,65; 17:2; Acts 16:14; Romans 9:9-23; 1 Corinthians 1:30; Galatians 1:15-16; Ephesians 1:4-11; 2:1-10; James 1:18; 1 Peter 1:3). If man was to believe apart from God’s grace and sovereign initiative, he would have every reason to boast, for although he could glibly claim that he was saved by grace, he could still boast of his superior wisdom in choosing Christ. But this, of course, would fly in the face of too many texts which state that the redeemed will have no basis in which to boast before God (1 Corinthians 1:18-31; Ephesians 2:8-9).

Fourthly, the Arminian interpretation of foreseen faith is contradicted by verse 3 which says that the Father, “according to His great mercy has caused us to be born again to a living hope.” Notice that Peter attributes our spiritual regeneration to what God, out of His “great mercy,” has sovereignly done for us --- and not upon anything inherent within us or arising out of human volition!

Fifthly, the New Testament is clear that men must be granted both repentance and faith(Acts 5:31; 11:18; 16:14; 18:27; Philippians 1:29; 2 Timothy 2:25-26) which, of course, means that they cannot exercise such repentance and faith in their own strength! Thus, it is wrong to imagine that God would condition His choice of individuals upon foreseen faith, since the natural man has no power to exercise such saving faith, but is utterly dependent upon God to grant it.

Sixthly, such terms as “foreknew” and “foreknowledge,” as used in Scripture, denotes God’s forelove. To say that God “foreknew” us is but another way of saying that He set His gracious and merciful regard upon us, that He knew us from eternity past with a sovereign and distinguishing delight (see Jeremiah 1:5; Amos 3:2; John 10:27). For further study, see John Murray, The Epistle to the Romans (NICNT), pp.315-320.

Finally, the Arminian interpretation of 1 Peter 1:2 ultimately leads to God’s demotion and man’s self-exaltation. It robs God of His sovereignty and divine prerogative in salvation, making him completely dependent upon some future choice of man. It not only nullifies the biblical concept of grace, but it places the salvation of God in the hands of men, making man the final arbiter of his own destiny. In addition, it makes nonsensical a host of passages which unequivocally declare human inability in spiritual matters.

Written by Darryl M. Erkel (1999)

Recommended Reading:

C. Samuel Storms, Chosen For Life: An Introductory Guide to the Doctrine of Divine Election (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1987).

Thomas R. Schreiner & Bruce A. Ware, The Grace of God, The Bondage of the Will [2 Vols.] (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1995).

John Murray, Redemption Accomplished and Applied (Grand Rapids: Wm.B. Eerdmans, 1955).

Edwin Palmer, The Five Points of Calvinism (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1980).

R.C. Sproul, Willing to Believe: The Controversy Over Free Will (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1997).