Arminianism Archives - Redeeming God

Some say that John Calvin was not a Calvinist.

In some regards, this is probably true. There are one or two points of Calvinism which John Calvin is less than clear about in his writings. In some places, he seems to say one thing, and in other places, he says the opposite. This is not too surprising, especially for someone who wrote as voluminously as did John Calvin.

But the real reason we can say that John Calvin was truly not a Calvinist is because he himself did not develop the system of theology which bears his name.

Jacobus Arminius

Several years after John Calvin died in 1564 (click here to see a brief history of John Calvin), a man named Jacobus Arminius traveled to Geneva to study under Theodore Beza, who was Calvin’s successor.

After Arminius completed his studies in 1587, he moved to Amsterdam to pastor a church there. As he as preaching through Romans in the years that followed, he developed several points of disagreement with the theology of John Calvin. In fact, it was actually in seeking to defend the teachings of Calvin against some detractors that led Arminius to have doubts of his own. So just as Luther and Calvin had sought to reform the church of their day, Arminius sought to reform Calvinism.

The Five Articles of Remonstrance

After Jacobus Arminius died in 1609, some of his followers put together a document called “The Five Articles of Remonstrance.” In much the same way that Martin Luther had posted his 95 Theses on the church door in Wittenberg on October 31, 1517, for the purpose of stating his objections to the abuses he saw within the Roman Catholic Church and inviting church leaders to gather and discuss these items, so also, the Five Articles of Remonstrance were an invitation by the followers of Arminius to the followers of Calvin to gather for the purpose of discussing these issues.

The Canons of Dort and TULIP

Instead, the followers of John Calvin met in Dordrecht, Netherlands from 1618 to 1619 and crafted what has become known as the Canons of Dort. This consisted of a point-by-point refutation and condemnation of the Five Articles of Remonstrance.

As such, there were five main points to this second document. It is these five main points in the Canons of Dort that have become known as “Calvinism.”

The five Canons of Dort are often summarized today by the acrostic TULIP:

Total Depravity
Unconditional Election
Limited Atonement
Irresistible Grace
Perseverance of the Saints

A Summary of TULIP

TULIP Calvinism begins with the idea that mankind is completely sinful and cannot do anything to contribute to his salvation (Total Depravity).

As a result, we are totally dependent upon God to initiate salvation for us, which He did in eternity past by choosing to save some, without any condition or merit on the part of those whom He chose (Unconditional Election).

In order to accomplish this salvation of those whom He had previously chosen, God sent Jesus to die specifically and only for the sins of those whom He had chosen so that they might have eternal life (Limited Atonement).

Those whom God has chosen, and for whom Christ died, will be irresistibly drawn by God’s grace into God’s family (Irresistible Grace).

Since God’s will cannot be thwarted, none whom God has chosen, for whom Christ died, and whom were drawn and transformed by God’s grace, can ultimately be lost. They will all be glorified. Due to this gift of grace in their life, all who are delivered by God’s grace in this fashion will give evidence to it by living a life of perseverance in faith and good works (Perseverance of the Saints).

A Sixth Point of Calvinism?

The so-called sixth point of Calvinism, which of course is not mentioned in the five points above, but which undergirds them all, is the Sovereignty of God. One can see that God’s complete control over all things is behind each of the five points.

God must be in control, and God must accomplish everything, from first to last, if humans are to have any hope of salvation, and if God is to be certain of defeating sin, death, and the devil in the ultimate end.

Calvinism by Calvinists

Not all Calvinists will be happy with the brief summary above. I have tried to state the view as succinctly and clearly as I know how, and in fact, I tried to write that summary in a way that almost nobody could disagree with it—not even most non-Calvinists.

If you are trying to figure out what Calvinism is all about, it is likely that as you read through that brief description of the five points of Calvinism, you though, “Yeah? So? That’s what I believe. That’s what the Bible teaches, isn’t it?” Yes, well, that is what this series of posts on Calvinism will seek to determine.

Nevertheless, for those Calvinists who feel I did not properly explain Calvinism, tomorrow I will post some summaries of Calvinism from leading Calvinists. (This will be a common practice in my series on Calvinism … to allow Calvinists to explain their views in their own words. I hope any Calvinists reading this will allow me to do the same with my own views.)

My personal history with Calvinism

By Jeremy Myers

129 Comments

I am not really sure when I fully embraced Calvinism, but I do know that by the time I was in my early 20s, I was a five-point Calvinist.

Since Calvinism was so inherently logical and apparently biblical, I was fully persuaded in my own mind that “Calvinism is the Gospel, and the Gospel is Calvinism” (as some Calvinists claim). I vividly remember debating Calvinism with many of my non-Calvinist friends, trying to convince them of what was eminently obvious to anyone with a working brain.

Losing Limited Atonement

However, it was not long after this that one of my Calvinistic friends declared that he was no longer a five-point Calvinist, but was now a four-point Calvinist. He no longer believed in “Limited Atonement.”

I told him that he had begun to slide down a slippery slope, for the five points of Calvinism are like five links on a chain: they stand or fall together and if one link in the chain breaks, it is only a matter of time before the whole system unravels. My friend assured me that nothing of the sort would happen to him, and he was still fully convinced of the other four points of Calvinism.

I was skeptical, but he and I talked about it, studied the Scriptures, and read numerous books.

It was not long before I too had given up on Limited Atonement as well. But I was convinced that I would remain a four-point Calvinist, just like my friend. As it happened, what I told him about the links in the Calvinistic chain turned out to be true—at least for me.

Shedding Perseverance of the Saints

Later that year, I sat through a Bible College class on the General Epistles in which the professor, Dr. John Hart, had us read numerous books which challenged the fifth point of Calvinism: the Perseverance of the Saints.

Among the books he had us read were two that really challenged my thinking and helped me see certain key texts in a new light: They are The Epistle of James by Zane Hodges and The Reign of the Servant Kings by Joseph Dillow (a revised and updated edition of the book is now titled Final Destiny).

There were numerous other books I read and the class lectures of Dr. John Hart were influential as well, so within a year I had abandoned my belief in the Perseverance of the Saints, and was now a three-point Calvinist.

Calvinist No More

I remained a three-point Calvinists for quite a while, until, after Seminary, I began my first pastorate in Montana. It was there, where the rubber of theology hits the road of life, where the final three points of Calvinism finally fell.

The sources of influence were numerous and varied.

One elder named Bob Weaver challenged me to view God differently than I had before. I read some books which were recommended to me by others. God’s Strategy in Human History was helpful, as were various books by Samuel Fisk, Harry Ironside, C. Gordon Olson, Laurence Vance, and Dave Hunt.

Also, I was preaching at this time through the book of Ephesians, and my research and study on Ephesians 1 helped me to see that this chapter does not teach Unconditional Election as many Calvinists claim. Somewhere during those first five years as a pastor, all three of the remaining points of Calvinism crumbled in my mind.

Coming to Terms with non-Calvinism

It was an exciting but scary time.

It was exciting because my theology was changing and I was discovering new vistas on about the grace of God and the role of faith and works in the life of believers.

But it was scary because I kept wondering how deep the rabbit hole went. I didn’t want to be an Arminian, but at the same time, I knew I could no longer be a Calvinist.

In an attempt to stay true to my quickly fading Calvinistic beliefs, I read every Calvinistic book I could get my hands on. Not only did I read John Calvin, I also read John MacArthur, John Piper, R. C. Sproul, James Montgomery Boice, Philip Graham Ryken, A. W. Pink, Edwin Palmer, and dozens of other such authors, all of whom vigorously defended Calvinism.

In the end, though, none of them wrote anything in their books which persuaded me that my new belief system was wrong.

In fact, it often seemed to me that these Calvinistic authors themselves had never heard of the views which I myself held. They kept arguing against non-Calvinistic beliefs which I, as a non-Calvinist, did not believe!

It seemed to me that they had not read any of the books I had read, or even knew anything about the way of reading Scripture which I had adopted. At the time, I did not know exactly if these Calvinistic authors were trying to refute Arminian beliefs (which I had not read much of), or if they had simply erected anti-Calvinistic straw-man beliefs which were then easily knocked down. Looking back now, and having read many books on Arminian theology, I have to say that it was the latter.

Most Calvinists, it seems, rarely read books or listen to teachers that are not Calvinistic.

It is exceedingly rare to find a defense of Calvinism which actually deals with the documented beliefs and ideas of Calvinistic opponents. A typical Calvinistic defense seems to consist of stating the Calvinistic beliefs, quoting numerous Calvinistic authors, and referencing several biblical texts which seem to support the Calvinistic perspectives.

This pretty much brings me up to the present day.

Over the past fifteen years, I have continued to read both Calvinistic and non-Calvinistic authors, and study biblical texts from the various perspectives. With every passing year, I am more and more convinced that Calvinism reads Scripture incorrectly, distorts the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and has ultimately abandoned the roots of the Reformation.

All this will be seen in later posts.

So what about you? What is your history with Calvinism? Are you Calvinist now? Have you ever been a Calvinist? Do you know what Calvinism is? Share your stories in the comment section below.

I believe in the Five Solas of the Reformation

By Jeremy Myers

22 Comments

Last week I announced that I needed to take a break from my series on the violence of God, and that I was considering doing a series on Calvinism instead. I ran a survey to see if people were interested in this, and 98% of you said “Yes!” So here is the first post… (Some of these posts on Calvinism ended up in my book, The Re-Justification of God which can be found on Amazon.

I believe in the Five Solas

The rallying cry of the Reformation centers around five solas (or in proper Latin, the five solae): Sola Gratia, Sola Fide, Solus Christus, Sola Scriptura, and Soli Deo Gloria.

Though not actually stated in quite this fashion until the 20th century, these five statements summarize what the Reformation was about. The Reformation was about authority, tradition, and justification, and the leaders of the Reformation believed and taught that everything we have from God, is Sola Gratia, Sola Fide, Solus Christus, Sola Scriptura, and Soli Deo Gloria.

In English we might say that what we have from God is “by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone, according to the authority of Scripture alone, for the glory of God alone.”

I affirm all five statements. I consider myself to be a child of the Reformation.

I am Neither Calvinist nor Arminian

Yet I do not identify with either of the two main groups that came out of the Reformation; I am neither a Calvinist nor an Arminian. (I am not Lutheran either, for those Lutherans who see themselves as a group apart.)

Certainly, there are many things I appreciate about John Calvin, Jacobus Arminius, Martin Luther, and the other Reformers, but I have too many differences with the main theological arguments of each man to be comfortable identifying myself with the theological systems that bear their names.

Ironically, my main area of disagreement with Calvinism and Arminianism is that they do not take the five solas far enough.

That is, the Reformers and their followers stopped short of fully reforming their theology around the five solas. Having begun with the revolutionary truths of the five solas, they failed to follow through on the full theological ramifications of these five statements. As a result, the Reformation sputtered to a halt and—in my opinion—ultimately failed.

How can I say this?

The Failure of the Reformation

If you were to compare the typical writings of the average Calvinist, Arminian, Lutheran, and Catholic theologians, you would discover that when it comes to the issues of faith, grace, the accomplished work of Jesus Christ, the authority of tradition over Scripture, and the goal of glorifying God in all of life, there is very little distinguishable difference (See the journal article I wrote on this several years ago).

It is not just me saying this. There have been talks in recent decades between prominent leaders of these various groups to all reunite into one group. The primary sticking points, it seems, have nothing to do with the five solas, but center instead on issues like Mariology, the veneration of the Saints, and papal authority.

I believe that if the Reformers and their followers had resolutely held to the five solas, the spiritual landscape of the world today would be much different. The Reformation would have continued to do its work, so that grace, faith, love, and freedom would flow out of the church today in ways that have not been seen since the church began nearly 2000 years ago.

Of course, one cannot blame Luther, Calvin, Arminius, or any of the other Reformers for not fully following through on the ramifications of their own theological insights. Theological development is a multi-generational endeavor.

We can, however, challenge both the contemporary and historical followers of the Reformers to advance upon the teachings of their forebears. No Reformer, I believe, ever thought that his beliefs were perfect and that nobody could ever improve upon his teachings or take his ideas further.

The Reformers would agree, I think, with what some people say about the Reformation: “Always reforming; never reformed.” The reformation of church and theology is never over.

Just as the Reformers sought to reform the church of their day, so also, they would want those who came after them to continue the reforms “till we all come to the unity of the faith” (Ephesians 4:13).

Let the Reforming Continue!

That is the purpose of this series on Calvinism. I hope that the information contained within these posts will build upon the reformations that began during the Reformation and will lead to further reformation in the future. Specifically, I want to provide Calvinists and non-Calvinists with a perspective on certain passages of Scripture which will hopefully allow people to see that there are viable alternatives to Calvinism and it’s theological opposite, Arminianism.

There is a balanced middle ground between Calvinism and Arminianism.

Though there are numerous avenues that one might take in seeking to provide a non-Calvinistic perspective on Scripture, the route I have chosen is to emphasize the biblical teaching on “faith alone” and contrast it with what is often taught in Calvinism. I want to show how Calvinism, though it claims to defend sola fide, actually undermines it with every point of its theological system.

Related to this, the book will also contain a heavy emphasis on radical, outrageous, shocking, scandalous grace. Of course, I cannot write about faith or grace without mentioning Jesus Christ. All of this discussion will revolve around what the Scripture says, rather than on human or religious tradition, and ultimately, the entire discussion is for the glory of God as I seek to help others see the radiating grace of God in the face of Jesus Christ as He died on the cross for the sins of the whole world.

Hopefully, as these posts progress, you can proclaim the five solas aloud with me: Sola Gratia! Sola Fide! Solus Christus! Sola Scriptura! Soli Deo Gloria!

If you want to read more about Calvinism, check out other posts in this blog series: Words of Calvinism and the Word of God.

Is Pastoral Theology Inconsistent Theology?

By Jeremy Myers

8 Comments

I sometimes hear pastors say that they don’t have systematic theology; they have pastoral theology.

As a pastor myself, I used to nod my head in agreement. I too am concerned with the way some theologians seemed too caught up with dotting every theological “i” while neglecting the task of serving others.

However, in recent years, I have come to develop some reservations about the whole “pastoral theology” concept.

Not Pastoral Theology

In the minds of some today, the pastor who claims to have a pastoral theology is often just saying that his theology is not fixed and consistent. Instead, they adjust their theological views to fit the pastoral concern being faced. This approach often leads to contradictions in theology. Like the situational ethics of the 70s, many pastors have a different theology depending on the situation they find themselves in.

Pastoral theology might be better to call it situational theology.

A Conversation with a Pastoral Leader

This was brought to my attention through a recent conversation I had with another pastor. He and I did not see eye to eye on certain issues of soteriology, and it was not long before he expressed some some serious logical contradictions. When I pointed these out to him, he said that he lived with these contradictions because he had “pastoral theology,” not systematic theology.

When pressed to explain the difference, he relayed the following story which he said actually happened to him:

I was in my office and a man came in who was a serial adulterer. He shared that although he is married, for the past seven years he slept with at least one different woman every month. I asked him if he thought he was a Christian, and the man said, “Yes, I accepted Christ as my personal Savior when I was in high school. They told me I was secure forever, and so I know that even though I’m sinning, I’m still going to heaven.”

Personally, I would have stopped and asked the man for further clarification on what he thought he had done in high school. Why did he say, “They told me I was secure forever”? Why didn’t the man point to Jesus’ promise of eternal life? What did he mean when he said, “I accepted Christ as my personal Savior”? Until these questions are answered, it is still uncertain whether or not he has believed in Jesus Christ alone for eternal life. But this particular pastor thought that the man’s statement was fine, and so his story continued:

In such a case, my pastoral heart tells me to put the fear of hell into the man. I told the man that if he was ever saved, he certainly wasn’t saved now. Such adultery was a serious pattern of sin. Unless he repented of his sin, and returned to a monogamous lifestyle, he would not enter heaven.

This is classic Arminian loss-of-salvation theology. It was a little surprising for me to hear these words coming from this man who claimed to be a Calvinist. But he continued his story:

Later that day a different man came into my office. He too admitted to being an adulterer. He was married for seven years, and in that time frequently looked at pornography and had committed adultery twice. He sat in my office with tears streaming down his face, worried that he had lost his salvation and that God would never forgive him.

But I saw that this man had a repentant heart, and he knew that what he had done was sinful. He was a genuine Christian, not in need of chastisement and the fear of hell, but in need of love and forgiveness. I told him that God still loved him, and that Christ had died for all of his sins—past, present, and future—and that there was nothing which could separate him from God. He was secure in the hand of God. Of course, I warned him that he needed to turn from his sin, or else it may prove he was never saved in the first place.

So in one day, this man’s pastoral theology led him to espouse Arminian theology to one person and Calvinistic theology to another. The two systems are contradictory, but he didn’t care, for his theology was “pastoral.” He admitted the two views were contradictory, but only if viewed apart from the individual situations. He molded his theology to fit what he thought the person in front of him needed to hear. This was his pastoral theology.

Inconsistent Pastoral Theology Helps No One

I do not believe such an approach helps anybody. Such contradictions only lead to confusion. This sort of situational pastoral theology does more damage than good, because it allows love for people to drown out the truth of God’s Word. And when truth gets neglected in the name of love, love dies too. It is not loving to tell a lie in a kind way, even if we think the lie is what a person needs. It is far better to “speak the truth in love” (Eph 4:15). It is also far better to be Biblical, rather than pastoral.

Consider the first man. Not only was he not given the clear message about how to receive eternal life, he was also given a false message. If this man was indeed unregenerate, he went away with a message in his head that would make it harder for him to be born again. He was told that to enter heaven, he needed to be monogamous. While there certainly are practical benefits and blessings for monogamy, the Bible nowhere lists monogamy as a condition for going to heaven.

So although this pastor thought he was telling this man what was necessary to get him to change his lifestyle, the message he gave was wrong. How practical, how pastoral was that? Doesn’t God know best?

And what about the second man? He also was given a false message. He may have gone away feeling better, but if he wasn’t already born again, he left this encounter more confused than ever. For although he might have been temporarily encouraged, he too was told to refrain from pornography and adultery if he wanted to go to heaven. Once again, the Bible never says this.

So this situational approach to theology is neither loving, nor pastoral.

When pastoral theology becomes situational theology, it helps no one, and only confused those who hear it. If our goal in pastoral theology is to help those who are in our care to understand God and live according to His Word, wouldn’t it be best to have a theology that is consistent and which doesn’t shift with each new counseling session?

If we want to have true pastoral theology, we would be wise to give people what God said! For example, Jesus gives everlasting life to anyone who believes in Him (John 3:16; 5:24; 6:47; etc.), and a life of obedient discipleship is important for fellowship and rewards. That is an encouraging, loving, and pastoral message. Best of all, it’s true.

Want to learn more about the gospel? Take my new course, "The Gospel According to Scripture."

The entire course is free for those who join my online Discipleship group here on RedeemingGod.com. I can't wait to see you inside the course!

A Brief Summary of Calvinism

Jacobus Arminius

The Five Articles of Remonstrance

The Canons of Dort and TULIP

A Summary of TULIP

A Sixth Point of Calvinism?

Calvinism by Calvinists

My personal history with Calvinism

Losing Limited Atonement

Shedding Perseverance of the Saints

Calvinist No More

Coming to Terms with non-Calvinism

I believe in the Five Solas of the Reformation

I believe in the Five Solas

I am Neither Calvinist nor Arminian

The Failure of the Reformation

Let the Reforming Continue!

Is Pastoral Theology Inconsistent Theology?

Not Pastoral Theology

A Conversation with a Pastoral Leader

Inconsistent Pastoral Theology Helps No One

Theological Study Archives

Bible Study Archives

Advertise or Donate

Search (and you Shall Find)

Get Books by Jeremy Myers

Schedule Jeremy for an interview

Click here to Contact Me!