Jason Dollar . Net

God’s sovereignty and man’s responsibility are both taught in Scripture

The heart of the controversy between Calvinism and Arminianism lies in the fact that there are two sets of scripture that seem to conflict on this issue. You have the God-chose-us set of scriptures (Eph. 1:3-14; Rom. 9:6-25; and so on), and then you have the we-chose-God set (Josh. 24:15; John 3:16; and so on).

Those who wear the label Calvinist, often insist that the priority between these two sets must go to the God-chose-us set. Likewise, Arminians will automatically elevate the we-chose-God set of Scriptures and say that they must take first seat.

Calvinists are often offended by Arminians because they believe that Arminians are stealing glory away from God by implying that salvation is dependant upon man. Arminians are often flustered at Calvinists because they seem to be teaching that man has no part to play in the process of salvation at all, and therefore cannot be responsible for his sin (is God the author of sin?).

It is funny though, how sometimes Calvinists talk like Arminians, and Arminians talk like Calvinists. This happens all the time! A Calvinist might say to an unbeliever, “Turn to God and repent of your sins.” Wait a minute! Why tell somebody to do something when in fact God alone is responsible for salvation?

In the same way an Arminian might be praying and say, “Lord, save my brother Larry.” Now hold on! If Arminian theology (as it is so often defined) is right, God has forfeited the right to save Larry. God can only save Larry if Larry chooses to let go of his sin and cling to Jesus. So both sides of this controversy are often stereotyped in an unfair manner. Why is this?

I believe it is because too often, neither side really understands their own theological position. What I am advocating in this post is not an ignoring of doctrine (so that we can all just get along), but rather a proper understanding of it (which I hope will lead to more of us getting along). I am not advocating a synthesis of the two systems, but rather a deeper comprehension of the one true biblical system, that both these systems are pointing to.

I am convinced that the majority of Calvinists and Arminians are so weak in their own theology, that the primary reason they attack the other side so vehemently is because they are scared to death that they might be wrong. That is why churches split over this issue. It should never happen.

Why? Because God’s sovereignty and man’s responsibility (and oh, yes, choice) are both clearly taught in Scripture. No matter which side of the court you play on theologically, you cannot escape the truth of the other side, though both sides, as if in a mad scramble, often interpret the “opposing texts” with a complete lack of logic and context, just to try and make them fit their system.

But because both sides of this issue are clearly taught in scripture, there should never be a split in a church where the people believe the Bible and truly want to get at what it really teaches. There should be no militant Calvinist trying to change a historically Arminian church by sneaking in the doctrine covertly (or vice versa). Instead, there should be honest attempts from Spirit filled people to get at the truth together with love and desire to see God glorified through our progressive understanding of doctrine.

God’s sovereign choice and man’s choice of God are biblically and logically reconcilable

Some believe that God’s sovereignty and man’s choice cannot be reconciled. However, bright theologians have labored to show us that they, in fact are reconciled in the pages of Scripture, but often pastors and church members fail to listen. 

For example, check out John Piper’s article, where he explains from Jonathan Edward’s perspective how God’s choice and man’s choice are reconciled. Additionally, in one of the most reformed presentations of the doctrine of predestination, Loraine Boettner writes, “According to the doctrine of predestination, the freedom and responsibility of man are fully preserved” (The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination,205). So how do these two doctrines go together?

First, we must understand how the human creature works when it comes to desire: human beings always choose the things that they deemed to be the best thing for them. In other words, we are set up, so to speak, as creatures that choose for our best benefit, as we define it. This does not mean people always make good choices, obviously, but that we choose what we think will benefit us the most. An alcoholic, for example, may make horrible choices, but at the same time truly believe that binge drinking will give him the best outcome as he defines it (maybe to drown out his sorrows). Understanding this reality of the human creature is a key component in this discussion. 

Second, we must understand what it is that sin has affected. Not the will, but rather the heart (that is, we are depraved in the area that values things). Our will is simply our “chooser.” It is that part of us that moves us to do and obtain certain things. Our wills, even though we are fallen creatures, are still functioning in this way. But it is the heart that guides the will, and it is the heart that is corrupted by sin: “For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false witness, slander” (Matt. 15:19). So people can still make choices in spite of our fallen condition. But in our current sinful state, we consistently make the choice to break God’s law and rebel against him. In fact, we are enslaved to sin in our fallen state, as Paul explains in Romans 6. But when Jesus saves us and cleans our hearts, THEN our wills choose that which truly is to our best benefit, namely Christ himself.

Third, we must understand what God does to us at regeneration. He opens our eyes to see and our ears to hear, and he gives us a new heart (John 3). He does not MAKE US choose him (hypercalvinism). Rather he heals us so that we can see him as the best possible benefit for our own souls – and then we automatically choose him, for our creative design is always to choose the best thing for us, as we see it.

Now, for the Calvinist, God has chosen from before the foundation of the world, whose eyes he will open (Eph. 1). And for the Arminian, God does not force us to choose him, but we do it by our own determined will, for we will choose, and we actually choose that which we deem the best for us. The connection between the two doctrines can be thus summarized: God opens our eyes (by his choice) and we choose him (as we must do by creative design).

Now, this also answers another point of disagreement between the two camps, the issue of fairness. Arminians charge Calvinists with saying that God is unfair to choose some and not to choose others. But according to Scripture, it is not unfair at all, for every person will get their just reward or punishment based upon what they choose. For a person who is in sin, chooses sin. His eyes are closed to God, but they are opened to everything else in the world. God’s choice to open some eyes is not an issue of fairness, but of mercy. He could have left all eyes closes, and we could all slide into hell, and he still would not be unfair or unjust, for we all have willingly offended him and deserve his wrath. And we get what we deserve and choose.

It should be noted here that I am focused in this post on moderate forms of both Calvinism and Arminianism. Obviously if either of these positions is pushed to their extremes, they become heresy and must be dealt with in a different manner (neither Pelagianism nor Hpercalvinism can be biblically substantiated, and both should be abandoned). I also realize that this treatment is way to brief and does not even begin to deal with all the issues in detail (believe me, I realize this). But I hope this brief overview at least shows how the two doctrines might be reconciled biblically and logically.

A Pastor should be the shepherd of his people, which means leading them to grow progressively

It is so often that a pastor is convinced one way or the other on this issue, and wants to immediately make all of his people believe the way he does. He might forget that he has been to Bible College and seminary and reads theology and has been hammering these issues out with professors and classmates, but his church members have not. So he comes in preaching one side of the issue and people get mad. Before a year is up, the church has split or has deep wounds because of the pastor’s method of indoctrination. (I realize some denominations face this type of problem more than others).

This story, or some variation of it, is far too common. Have pastors forgotten what their calling is: to unify the Bride of Christ and shepherd their souls to heaven. Brother Pastor speaks up: “But Jason, there are doctrinal deficiencies here that must be corrected!” Pastor, have you truly considered how these theologies are logically and biblically reconciled? Maybe you are the one with a doctrinal deficiency and you are causing a church split because of your ignorance.

Why do so many pastors assume that every church member should be an expert on these issues? Did you know, Calvinist, that the doctrine of predestination is hard to understand and difficult to place into an average person’s theology. It doesn’t happen over night, and often leads to negative reactions. Why do you get angry at the Arminian who is having a tough time with it? What if a shepherd got angry and beat every sheep in his flock for doing only what comes natural to them? Loving patience is needed in this task.

And Arminian, do you not realize that your Calvinist brother is desperately trying to protect God’s glory and preserve a proper understanding of God’s sovereignty? Why do you get so angry at Him when he says that God chooses people? Your Calvinist brother is not claiming you are a robot, but he is saying that God is ultimately in control.

Pastor, you must shepherd your sheep. Not by ignoring theology, but because of it. Don’t water down doctrinal preaching or discussion because of this controversy, but be patient, gentle, and seek to understand it and your people, before you blow up and become angry and arrogant. Pastor your people where they are, not were you would like them to be. Yes, be moving in the direction of where you would like them to be, but you can’t get there tomorrow. You have to start where they are and lead from there and it is usually a long-term process of spiritual maturity.

Christians who truly believe and love God should be demonstrating the fruit of the Spirit to others, even when they disagree

This is the point that really gets me the most. Those who clinch their teeth, and cling to the camp mentality in both these groups, and who claim they love God so much, and are seeking to preserve true doctrine, will often then turn to flush the fruit of the Spirit down the toilet. Hypocrites! If you can’t love, respect, bear long with, and treat with gentleness a Calvinist or an Arminian, then check again to see if you are in Christ (1 Cor. 13). Churches that split over Calvinism and Arminianism are actually splitting because they fail to apply the fruit of the Spirit. 

“Well, Martin Luther was a hothead and often got into bitter disputes over theological matters.” I encourage you to read Luther a little closer. He often used strong language to clarify his positions, but he loved his opposition dearly and sought the good of his opponents. Luther never desired a church split. He wanted Reformation not evacuation. His humility is often covered by his explicit comments concerning the Pope and indulgences and other Catholic heresies. By and large, Luther was gentle and longsuffering to his theological opponents. Let us learn from him, and many others, who fly the banner of love in Christ highest.