To many Christians it seems as if theologians have a tendency to make an unfair dichotomy between Calvinism and Arminianism, as if these were the only two views anyone could hold. The truth is, not every Christian is comfortable classifying himself as either a Calvinist or an Arminian, and for good reason: Many do not agree entirely with either the so-called five points of Calvinism or with the contrary five points of Arminianism that have come to more-or-less define the two doctrines.
For example, I know many Christians who are definitely not Calvinists, yet in contrast to full-blown Arminianism they completely believe in eternal security (that is, the idea that those who are truly saved can never lose their salvation, or what Calvinists sometimes call the perseverance of the saints). These Christians are understandably sometimes offended when a Calvinist refers to their beliefs as Arminian simply because they do not hold to the Calvinist view of election. Even more offensive is the implication that sometimes comes across that these people are basically inconsistent Arminians, as though if they took the time to think through their beliefs, they would undoubtedly have to convert to full Arminianism.
I believe we ought to avoid such offensive characterizations as much as possible. Nevertheless, I do understand where they come from, and I think there is a kernel of truth behind them that we ought to acknowledge, even as we seek to phrase it in a hopefully more enlightening, less offensive manner. With this in mind, the following is my attempted explanation.
Though many Christians lie somewhere in the spectrum between full Calvinism and full Arminianism, I do not believe very many (if any) could truly claim to be completely in the middle. The fact is, there are two very different ways of thinking about salvation and election, and there is a very distinct dividing line between them. And while it is not exactly fair or accurate to label everyone on one side of that line a Calvinist and everyone on the other side an Arminian, there is a certain practicality in having such labels. So perhaps it would be alright to at least refer to these two different ways of thinking as the Calvinist-type approach and the Arminian-type approach, respectively, without meaning to imply anything further about the beliefs of those who take each approach.
Where is the dividing line between these two ways of thinking? Quite simply, it has to do with the relationship between God’s choice of man and man’s choice of God.
Most Christians will freely acknowledge that both of these things are clearly presented in Scripture. In order to be saved, men must make a choice. And those who are saved are also described as chosen by God. Furthermore, these two things are not logically independent of one another; they are related. Those who have truly chosen God are one and the same as those whom God can describe as His chosen ones, or His elect. For those who are in agreement up to this point, there are really only two different ways of understanding the logical relationship between God’s choice of man and man’s choice of God. Either God’s choice of man is the basis for man’s choice of God, or man’s choice of God is the basis for God’s choice of man.
(For those who want to be pedantic, technically there is a third way that these two things could be logically related: It could be that both God’s choice of man and man’s choice of God are each logically based on some other common factor. However, I have never heard anyone coherently suggest such a thing, and I cannot imagine what anyone might possibly be inclined to identify as the common factor that both God’s choice and man’s choice are each based on. Essentially, this view would combine the difficulties of both the Calvinist-type approach and the Arminian-type approach, as well as adding some new difficulties all of its own.)
Those who understand God’s choice of man as being the logical basis for man’s choice of God are following the Calvinist-type approach. They may or may not like to call themselves Calvinists, or agree with the whole doctrine of Calvinism, but their fundamental approach is the same. They fully recognize that man must choose God in order to be saved, but they believe that the ultimate determination of who ends up willingly choosing God is based on the issue of God’s sovereign choice of them first. In other words, they believe that men are unconditionally predestined in the matter of salvation.
Those who understand man’s choice of God as being the logical basis for God’s choice of man are following the Arminian-type approach. They may or may not like to call themselves Arminians, or agree with the whole doctrine of Arminianism, but their fundamental approach is the same. They recognize that God chooses man, but they believe that this choice is ultimately based on His foreknowledge of who will be willing (given the right influences which God can bring about in their lives) to choose God. In other words, they do not believe that men are unconditionally predestined in the matter of salvation.
I have attempted to state these ideas as clearly and concisely as possible, and in a neutral way that I don’t personally understand how anyone could object to, no matter which of the two approaches he takes. I may well have failed. In particular, I can imagine some not liking the labels I used for the two different approaches, which is perfectly fine. Call them Approach A and Approach B instead if you prefer. My hope is that we can get past the issue of labels and that this short essay may in some manner help each of us to better understand our own approach to the grand topic of salvation and election, so that we can think through the Biblical passages on this issue more logically and with less chance of causing or taking offense.
For those who may be totally agnostic on this issue of election (quite probably the only Christians who can truly say they take neither one of the two approaches mentioned, since they simply cannot decide which one to take), I encourage further research and study in the Word. In spite of the tendency of this issue to sometimes degenerate into uncharitable debate, it is still a topic well worth meditating upon, and those who do so will be richly rewarded by a fuller knowledge of God. And that is, after all, the ultimate goal of every true Christian.
Note: I am indebted to David Clotfelter and his excellent book Sinners in the Hands of a Good God (Moody Publishers, 2004) for this insight on the key importance of the logical relationship between God’s choice of man and man’s choice of God. (See especially chapter 4, “His Choice, My Choice.”)
This page copyright © 2007 Edward A. Morris. Created December 10, 2007. Last updated December 10, 2007.