Five Common Misunderstandings About Calvinism

Posted on by

I speak for many when I say that I have not always embraced the doctrines of grace, or what is commonly called Calvinism. The name has never been especially important to me. John Calvin did not invent the doctrines that now bear his name, and he certainly was not infallible. The Reformers looked back beyond their own generation to Augustine, and Augustine looked back to Paul. But Calvin and Augustine are not our authority. Paul, writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, is. The question is not whether Calvin taught these things. The question is whether Scripture does.

Even now, I have no desire to be a Calvinist in the 1 Corinthians 1 sense, as though I could say, “I follow Calvin.” I believe Calvin was a tremendous expositor of Scripture, but I am with Spurgeon, who told his congregation:

“There is no soul living who holds more firmly to the doctrines of grace than I do, and if any man asks me whether I am ashamed to be called a Calvinist, I answer, I wish to be called nothing but a Christian; but if you ask me, do I hold the doctrinal views which were held by John Calvin, I reply, I do in the main hold them, and rejoice to avow it.”

C. H. Spurgeon, “The Man with the Measuring Line,” Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit, no. 604; reproduced in “A Defence of Calvinism” in his Autobiography

In coming to understand these doctrines that are now so precious to me, I realize there were fortresses built in my mind to defend against the idea of God being sovereign in the matter of salvation. Such was my total depravity! These fortresses were not made of stone and brick but of man-made ideas, concepts I believed Scripture taught with clarity. They did not come down easily. In fact, I believe it is a work of divine grace not only to regenerate His people, but also to open the hearts and minds of His own people to the truth of His sovereignty in election.

There are many false ideas about Calvinism. Here are five that are very common.

1. Calvinism destroys evangelism

Some Calvinists do have an aversion to evangelism, and that needs to be addressed wherever it appears. We should be honest about it: a real distortion of these doctrines, known as hyper-Calvinism, once suppressed missionary urgency in some circles. It was hyper-Calvinism, not the doctrines of grace, that William Carey and Andrew Fuller had to overcome. They did not abandon God’s sovereignty in order to recover missions. They rejected the distortion while remaining convinced Particular Baptists, and the society they formed in 1792 sent Carey to India. Convinced Calvinists have been among the great missionaries of church history precisely because they believed Christ had His sheep in every tribe, tongue, people and nation, and they crossed oceans to find them.

Romans 8 and 9 teach election clearly, and Romans 10 tells us of the necessity of preaching. “How are they to hear without someone preaching?” (Romans 10:14). Paul does not say “the elect” there, but the elect are certainly in view. God ordains both the salvation of His people and the means by which He brings them to faith. Election does not make preaching unnecessary. “So faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ” (Romans 10:17). Romans 10 is no contradiction of Romans 8 and 9.

Election gives us deep confidence in evangelism. Our hope is Christ, His gospel, and the Spirit’s saving power, and election tells us that hope will not be disappointed. No one we speak to about Christ is beyond hope, for God may well have ordained from all eternity that our conversation or our preaching is the very means by which He gathers one of His sheep into the fold. What a privilege to be used by God in this way.

Election should never undermine evangelism. It should fuel it when mere human emotion wanes. Results may not come immediately, but God has His sheep who will hear His voice and follow Him when Christ is preached.

Election also explains why some believe and some do not. Those who believe do so because of sovereign grace. Those who refuse remain fully responsible for their unbelief. Jesus said to one group, “you do not believe because you are not among my sheep” (John 10:26), and Luke explained the results of the early church’s preaching by declaring, “as many as were appointed to eternal life believed” (Acts 13:48).

2. Calvinism appeals to the pride of man

Sadly, some Calvinists do reek of pride and give off an air of being better than those around them, but that is a total betrayal of biblical Calvinism. If we recognize our total depravity, our radical corruption, we understand that there was absolutely nothing in us that caused God to look down on us with such favor. The only thing we can say in response to His electing grace is, “Lord, why me?”

“For he says to Moses, ‘I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.’ So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy” (Romans 9:15-16).

Paul says the same thing to the Corinthians and tells us why God did it this way: “God chose what is foolish in the world to shame the wise; God chose what is weak in the world to shame the strong; God chose what is low and despised in the world, even things that are not, to bring to nothing things that are, so that no human being might boast in the presence of God” (1 Corinthians 1:27-29).

“God intentionally designed salvation so that no man can boast of it. He didn’t merely arrange it so that boasting would be discouraged or kept to a minimum. He planned it so that boasting would be absolutely excluded. Election does precisely that.”

Mark Webb, “What Difference Does It Make?” Reformation & Revival Journal 3, no. 1 (Winter 1994)

A man who knows he was chosen for no reason in himself has nothing left to be proud of.

3. Calvinism stunts holiness

I have heard this a few times recently and just scratch my head in wonder. The Puritans were strong Calvinists, and few groups in church history pursued holiness more seriously. But the best answer is not historical. It is inside the doctrine of election itself.

God “chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him” (Ephesians 1:4). Holiness does not compete with election. It is one of the very ends for which God elected His people. Those He foreknew “he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son” (Romans 8:29).

He “chose you as the firstfruits to be saved, through sanctification by the Spirit and belief in the truth” (2 Thessalonians 2:13). A doctrine that says God chose you in order to make you holy cannot be a doctrine that excuses you from holiness.

That is why Scripture, and true Calvinism with it, tells us to examine ourselves to see whether we are in the faith (2 Corinthians 13:5). Election does not diminish our responsibility to make sure that we who profess faith in Christ actually possess the faith that saves. If we have the real thing, and not some fraudulent substitute for it, there will be evidence to show it. That is the biblical test, rather than simply recalling a time when we raised a hand or walked an aisle, which is what many of us were taught. The call to holiness is a call every true Christian will heed, for without holiness no one will see the Lord (Hebrews 12:14).

4. Calvinism teaches that men are merely robots

Reformed theology does not teach that people are robots. We really choose. We really desire. We really act voluntarily, and that is exactly why we are really responsible. A person chooses what he most desires at the moment of choice. You are choosing right now to read this sentence, when there are literally billions of other sentences out there waiting to be read.

Why are you reading this sentence right now?

Because at this very moment, the desire to keep reading has won out over your competing desires. You will keep reading until some stronger desire, perhaps answering the phone, taking a shower, or going for a walk, wins out. The heart and the will are inseparably connected.

So the issue is not whether we choose. It is what a fallen heart is able to desire. What Scripture denies is that the fallen will is morally neutral, or spiritually able to free itself from its bondage to sin. We are free agents. We are not spiritually able. “The mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God’s law; indeed, it cannot. Those who are in the flesh cannot please God” (Romans 8:7-8).

“The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned” (1 Corinthians 2:14). By nature we love the darkness rather than the light (John 3:19). Jesus said, “No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day” (John 6:44). Calvinists take these words seriously, along with Christ’s words in John 3 that unless a man is born again, he cannot enter or even see the kingdom of God.

What we need is not “free will” but wills made free. Spurgeon said it in one line:

“I have heard some men talk as if the strength of free will, of human nature, was sufficient to carry men to heaven. Free will has carried many souls to hell, but never a soul to heaven yet.”

C. H. Spurgeon, “Samson Conquered,” November 21, 1858, New Park Street Pulpit, no. 224

5. Calvinism diminishes the God of love

I think for many, this is the big one. They hold a concept of the love of God that, while very popular, is not particularly biblical. They believe (as I once did) that if God is love, He must love everyone in exactly the same way. But Scripture speaks of God’s goodness and kindness toward all people, and it also speaks unmistakably of His particular, saving love for His own. He “makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust” (Matthew 5:45). And Christ “loved the church and gave himself up for her” (Ephesians 5:25). We should not flatten those distinctions.

God’s kindness toward all people is not the same as His saving love for His own. Husbands are told to love their wives as Christ loved the church. Christ gave Himself for the church in a way He did not for Walmart or McDonald’s. No one would ever say about a husband, “Wow, look at the way this man loves his wife, and the great thing about his love for her is that he loves everyone else’s wife in just the same way.”

This is a truth that needs to be taught with great care, because so many have false ideas stemming from inaccurate teaching about the love of God. We must be patient with such people when pointing them to the biblical texts. Some think John 3:16 destroys divine election, but it does not. The wonder of the verse is that God loved a world in rebellion against Him and gave His Son. And notice what the verse actually promises: everyone who believes will have eternal life. That promise does not settle the question of why one person believes while another refuses. For that, we must also listen to what Jesus says in John 6:37-44.

However we understand the words “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated” (Romans 9:13), Paul is describing God’s distinguishing mercy toward Jacob and His passing over of Esau. Whatever else that means, it does not mean God loved them identically.

“I in them and you in me, that they may become perfectly one, so that the world may know that you sent me and loved them even as you loved me.” John 17:23

Out of love for His name and for us, God sent His Son into the world to actually save His people, not merely to try. He went all the way in His love for us and did all the work in raising us from spiritual death by a work of supreme, matchless, measureless grace. Because salvation is of the Lord, all the glory for our salvation, absolutely all of it, goes to God alone.

One more word, for anyone reading this with a knot in the stomach. You do not need to discover whether you are elect before coming to Christ. Come to Him. He promises never to cast out anyone who comes: “whoever comes to me I will never cast out” (John 6:37).

If these doctrines are true, they leave us nothing to boast about and everything to praise God for. We preach because God saves through the gospel. We pursue holiness because He chose us to be holy. We come willingly to Christ because grace has made unwilling sinners willing. And we love because He first loved us. “For from him and through him and to him are all things. To him be glory forever. Amen” (Romans 11:36).

Corporate Election?

Posted on by

Mike Riccardi, in a facebook post of 9/7/26 writes:

Some theologians point to passages that teach election to service, the election of Christ, or the election of corporate entities to temporal blessing, and they argue that when Scripture speaks of election, it’s not about the election of individuals unto salvation.

But the fact that Scripture uses the terminology of election in one sense doesn’t mean that it can’t use that same terminology in other senses. In addition to vocational and corporate election, Scripture also teaches that God chooses certain individuals to receive the salvation He accomplishes in Christ.

I. Scripture explicitly connects election with salvation, with both the term and the concept appearing in salvific contexts.

1. In Ephesians 1:4, Paul states that the Father chose His people in Christ before the foundation of the world. Note, it doesn’t say that the Father chose Christ (though that’s true, 1 Peter 1:20), nor merely that He chose to save whoever believes in Christ, but that He chose “us”—a group of particular individuals. In other words, the objects of sovereign election are chosen to be united to Christ, the Mediator of their salvation.

This is when the Father “gives” His people to the Son (John 17:6), who will come to Him (John 6:37), be raised up on the last day (John 6:39), who are given eternal life (John 17:2; cf. 10:28-29), who are distinct from the world (John 17:9), and who will be with Christ forever in glory (John 17:24).

In the next verse, Ephesians 1:5, Paul says God’s purpose for choosing us in Christ is that His chosen ones would be holy and blameless before Him as adopted sons. Holiness, blamelessness, and adoption are all blessings of salvation—as are redemption (Eph 1:7, 14), forgiveness of sins (Eph 1:7), an eternal inheritance (Eph 1:11, 14), and the sealing of the Spirit (Eph 1:13). These are the fruits of “the gospel of [our] salvation,” and they start with the Father’s election.

2. In Acts 13:48, Luke narrates the conversion of the Gentiles in Pisidian Antioch by saying that “as many as had been appointed to eternal life believed.” Individuals savingly believe the Gospel because they had been appointed to eternal life by God.

3. Paul uses similar language when he tells the Thessalonians that God has “destined [them] … for obtaining salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ” (1 Thess 5:9). Destined for salvation.

4. Second Thessalonians 2:13 says what should end all controversy on the matter: “God has chosen you from the beginning for salvation.” God elects unto salvation.

5. And because Romans 9 is so clear, non-Calvinists aim to dismiss it by arguing that the election spoken of all throughout this chapter is a non-salvific election. But the context doesn’t allow for that.

a. For one, Romans 9 comes on the heels of Romans 8:28–39, where Paul links God’s foreknowledge and predestination—two words that speak of election—with several other aspects salvation. Those whom God foreknew and predestined, He also effectually called, justified and glorified. Those chosen are the ones who are regenerated, declared righteous, and finally brought to heaven to be with Christ.

b. For another, yes, there is no question that Romans 9 to 11 is about the place of Israel in God’s plans. But Paul begins this discussion about Israel by announcing his grief over their not being saved (9:1–5). Romans 9 (and 10 and 11) is about Israel’s salvation, or lack thereof: “My heart’s desire and my prayer to God for them is for their salvation” (10:1; cf. 9:30–33; 11:26).

c. God’s choice of Isaac over Ishmael (9:7–9) and Jacob over Esau (9:10–13) certainly had to do with nations and people groups and temporal blessings. But being “children of God” and “children of the promise” describes more than just earthly blessings or a special role for service. Every time Paul uses these phrases they are references to salvation (Rom 8:16, 21; Gal 4:28; Phil 2:15). Further, this election is “not because of works” (Rom 9:11), which picks up on Paul’s virtually ubiquitous polemic in favor of justification by faith alone (cf. Rom 3:28; 9:32; Gal 2:16). The language of Romans 9:6–13 is intensely salvific.

d. And 9:14–29 continues to show us that Paul has salvation in mind. There is mention of:

· vessels of wrath fitted for destruction (9:22; destruction being the opposite of salvation, cf. Phil 1:28);

· vessels of mercy prepared for glory (9:23; glory being the concomitant of salvation, cf. 8:18; 2 Tim 2:10);

· being God’s beloved people (9:25);

· being sons of the living God (9:26);

· a remnant who are saved (9:27); and

· the righteousness which is by faith rather than works (9:30–33).

II. And not only does Scripture use the terms and concepts of election in salvific contexts, it also identifies the objects of that election as particular individuals. I’ll stick to just Romans 9, because that text is probably the most disputed and because this post is already obscenely long.

1. In 9:15, Paul quotes Exodus 33:19, where God says, “I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.” Both relative pronouns (Gk. ὃν, “whom”) are singular, which indicates that Paul has in view particular individuals upon whom God exercises saving mercy.

2. In 9:16, Paul retains the use of the grammatical singular when he says, “So then it does not depend on the man who wills [τοῦ θέλοντος, genitive singular] or the man who runs [τοῦ τρέχοντος, genitive singular], but on God who has mercy.”

3. In 9:18, Paul sums up the argument of verses 14 to 17 and once again uses the singular relative pronoun whom: “So then He has mercy on whom [ὃν] He desires, and He hardens whom [ὃν] He desires.”

4. In 9:19, Paul represents the objection to his teaching in individual terms. He says, “You will say to me then, ‘Why does He still find fault? For who [the interrogative pronoun τίς, nominative singular masculine] resists His will?’”

5. And even through to 9:21, Paul speaks of “one [Gk. ὃ, accusative singular neuter] vessel for honorable use and another [same] for dishonorable use.”

New Testament scholar Tom Schreiner is right to conclude, “Those who say that Paul is referring only to corporate groups do not have an adequate explanation as to why Paul uses the singular again and again in Romans 9” (99).

Schreiner’s chapter, “Does Romans 9 Teach Individual Election Unto Salvation?”, is worth reading in its entirety (link in comments). If you read it, you’ll recognize two things: one, my indebtedness to Schreiner for the case made in this post; but also, that it is illegitimate to read Romans 9 as if it did not speak of election of particular individuals unto salvation.

Seeing The Whole

Posted on by

When Americans tell me they are heading to London for a week or ten days, they usually ask the same question: Where should we go? London is far too large a city to take in by wandering. My answer never changes. On your first day, find one of those red double-decker buses advertising a two-hour tour of the city, and get on it. You will not have to look hard. They are everywhere. Two hours sounds like a long time to sit still when you have only just arrived. It is the best two hours you will spend.

You have a local driver, and for two hours he is talking to everyone on board. That is the real gift. He knows things about the city that you could live there for years and never discover, and he keeps pointing out what you would otherwise drive straight past. Do you see that plaque above the shop? That is where such and such happened in 1682. Do you see that marker in the road? That commemorates an incident most Londoners have never heard of. Along the way, you pass Buckingham Palace, Whitehall, the Tower of London, the London Eye, Madame Tussauds, the Natural History Museum, and twenty other places besides. You have not really visited any of them. But you have seen all of them, and someone who knows has explained them to you.

That changes everything about the days that follow, because now you know what is there. You come off that bus with a list of seven or eight places you did not even know existed that morning, and you spend the rest of your trip exploring them properly.

Scripture works much the same way. The Bible is a magnificent book, and it is also a very large one. If we are going to plumb its depths, few things help more than seeing the whole first. We need a view of the whole map, a sense of how the story is shaped, so that we know where things fit. Then, whenever we open our Bibles, whether to Mark or Habakkuk or the Psalms or Exodus or 1 Chronicles or Galatians or Titus, we are not lost. We know where we are standing on the map.

That is precisely what Mitch Maher does in a video called Clarifying the Bible. It runs two hours and ten minutes and gives a general overview of the whole of Scripture. He does for the Bible what that driver does for London. He does not share our confessional position, though I found the overview itself sound and very helpful. His great gift is his grasp of the whole and his ability to communicate it clearly, so that you finish knowing where you are whenever you open the Book. Two hours and ten minutes is a small investment for a view of the whole. I would encourage you to take the ride.

Mitch Maher has made the full video freely available here. If two hours and ten minutes feels like more than you can manage in one sitting, do not let that put you off. Watch it in sections. The London tour buses are hop-on, hop-off for a reason, and you still see the whole city in the end.