INTRODUCTION

The Case Against Calvinism

There are some people ... who ... assert that God is, in himself, the cause and author of sin. ... If I should attempt to refute them, it would be like inventing a long argument to prove that God is not the Devil. (John Milton, De Doctrina Christiana)

Despiteformal denials from some Calvinists and documents such as The Westminster Confession of Faith, John Calvin and the system of theology he championed, does “... assert that God is, in himself, the cause and author of sin. ...” According to Calvin, it is all happening according to the perfect plan and purpose of God. Everything is as it should be. All Evangelicals would agree that God is ultimately going to have His way. Of that, there should be no doubt. But is everything as it should be—or just as important as God determined it to be? What about the wrong that men do? Can we trace moral evil back to God in the same way we can good things? Insofar as Calvin was concerned, even the first sin and its terrible consequences were orchestrated by God. Thus, Calvin could say:

God not only foresaw the fall of the first man, and in him the ruin of his posterity; but also at his own pleasure arranged it.³ As to how this kind of sovereign control and divine direction (of all things—even human choices) affects the eternal destiny of Adam’s posterity, Calvin reasoned:

... some are preordained to eternal life, others to eternal damnation; and, accordingly, as each has been created for one or other of those ends, we say that he has been predestined to life or death.⁴ The key to understanding Calvin is not only in the words “predestined to” but in the words “created for.” Where you go when you die, is, according to Calvin, determined by why God created you in the first place. It is possible, according to Calvin, that God created you for eternal life. Calvin also taught that it was equally possible that God created you for eternal death. Thus, for Calvin, there is both a bright side and a dark side to the destiny question (where will you go when you die?). If you are one of those individuals that God created for life, then your future (whether you know it or not) is indeed very bright. If, on the other hand, you are one of those individuals that God created for death, then your future (even if unknown to you) is dark indeed. That is, if Calvin is right:

... God ... arranges all things by his sovereign counsel, in such a way that individuals are born, who are doomed from the womb to certain death ...⁵

Only if you understand and agree with these statements of John Calvin (and the sentiments they represent) can it be correctly said that you are a true Calvinist. You do not have to agree with everything that Calvin said or taught to be a Calvinist. To be a true Calvinist, however, you do have to understand and agree with the central tenets and doctrinal distinctives of the Reformed faith. To be a true Calvinist, you must also believe much more than the doctrinal distinctives of Reformed Theology. As professor R. Laird Harris says:

It must not be forgotten that Calvinism holds, besides its distinc tives, to those doctrines common to all historic Christianity, such as the full truthfulness of Scripture, the Trinity, the deity of Christ, His supernatural miracles, bodily resurrection, etc. Without these basic and fundamental doctrines a theology cannot properly be called Calvinist or Reformed.⁶

It is the “distinctives” of the Reformed faith that are of concern to me and are the focus of this book. It may seem ironic, but one reason I go after Calvinism as I do in this book is precisely because those who embrace it (or who may be tempted to take a turn down the theologically-Reformed road) are sincere and devout believers. While I am clearly opposing Calvinism as a theological system, I do not consider Calvinists to be the enemy. In fact, I view Calvinists as the victims of Calvinism. The fact that many Calvinists are both sincere in what they believe and devoted to the Lord is not disputed in this book and has never been called into question by me.

Both my sincere appeal to Calvinists and harsh criticism of Calvinism are to some extent motivated by the very fact that I consider true Calvinists to be true Christians. While the issues that will be addressed in this book are serious and represent cause for great concern among the people of God, for me this is a “family” or “in-house” discussion and should not be interpreted in any other way. In light of the disturbing things that Calvinism says about God and a host of other related and very important topics, the fact that this is a “family matter” only makes the discussion all the more urgent and serious. For example, the Calvinist scholar John Feinberg admits:

Sometimes it would be easier not to be a Calvinist. An intellectual price tag comes with any conceptual scheme, but the one that comes with Calvinism seems beyond the resources of human intelligence to pay. Calvinists hold views that appear at very least counterintuitive. This is especially so with respect to Calvinist accounts of God’s sovereign control in relation to human freedom and moral responsibility for evil.

If Calvinists are right about divine sovereignty, there seems to be little room for human freedom. If freedom goes, so does human moral responsibility for sin. Worst of all, if Calvinists are right, it appears that God decides that there will be sin and evil in our world, maybe even brings it about that there is such evil, and yet, according to Calvinists, is not morally responsible for any of it.

We are.

If this is Calvinism’s God, Calvinism seems not only intellectually but also religiously bankrupt. Who would worship this God? Moreover, if atheists understand this portrait of God as paradigmatic of traditional Christianity, no wonder they are repulsed by Christianity. Although committed atheists will not likely abandon their atheism for any concept of God, at least the Arminian portrayal of God seems more attractive than the Calvinist portrayal.⁷

Notice that Feinberg seems most concerned about how Calvinism presents itself. In other words, the problem is with the accurate “portrayal” to which he refers. Conversely, it is not in a misrepresentation of that “portrayal” by non-Calvinists that troubles him. Though I doubt that Feinberg would say it quite this way or concede so much, it is Calvinism, accurately understood and fairly represented, that poses the greatest intellectual, emotional, spiritual, theological, and scriptural challenge, even and perhaps especially to those who call themselves Calvinists.

Given the fact that Feinberg has dedicated at least some of his life to promoting and defending Calvinism, what he admits here has not caused him to abandon Reformed Theology for the “Arminian portrayal of God.” Thus, despite what Feinberg concedes, he still believes that Calvinism is the “portrayal of God” found in Scripture. How this can be, if what he says about Calvinism is true, is difficult for me to fathom. Of course, Feinberg believes that Calvinism can be rescued from most of the criticism that even he has leveled against what he calls “the Calvinist portrayal.” Feinberg has worked very hard to resolve as many apparent problems inherent in Reformed Theology as he can. Nevertheless, there is, according to Feinberg, a portrait by Calvinists of Calvinism that he is not willing to accept. That is, Feinberg says:

Unfortunately, some Calvinists, because of their understanding of God’s sovereignty, have denied that humans are free. Yet some of those Calvinists maintain that we are morally responsible for our sin, while God, who decreed our sin, is not morally accountable. When asked how this can be true, they respond that it is a paradox that nonetheless must be true because Scripture demands it.⁸

Evidently, the Calvinists that Feinberg refers to here are, according to Feinberg, just copping out. I must confess that I cannot see any real difference in the faulty “understanding” of Calvinism that Feinberg seems to reject and the accurate “portrayal” he seems to accept. Regardless, it would appear that Edwin Palmer is representative of the kind of Calvinism that Feinberg finds objectionable. According to Palmer: To say on one hand that God has made certain all that ever happens, and yet to say that man is responsible for what he does ...[is] nonsense! It must be one or the other ... So the Calvinist has to make up his mind. What is his authority? His own human reason or the Word of God?⁹

These words must be very painful to the ears of someone like Feinberg who worries about how Calvinism appears to the rest of us. What Palmer does here is give us two choices. We can embrace:

1. “Nonsense”

Or:

2. Our “own human reason”

The “nonsense,” according to Palmer, is Calvinism. “Human reason” is anything contrary to “nonsense.” I sympathize with Feinberg and can see why these kinds of statements trouble him. Yet, it cannot be argued that Palmer is not onto something, and that what he says is much more representative of true Calvinism than what men like Feinberg will concede. Upon close inspection, Palmer is really only saying what Feinberg says. He just does so with less sophistication and less concern about how Calvinism may appear to others. As with Feinberg, for Palmer the conflicts in Calvinism are also only “apparent.” Thus he says:

... The apparent paradox between the sovereignty of God and the responsibility of man belongs to the Lord our God and we should leave it there. We ought not probe into the secret counsel of God.¹⁰ Are these conflicts in Calvinism really only an “apparent paradox,” or are they hopeless contradictions, with absolutely no hope of reconciliation in this life or the next? Even though some Calvinists make a valiant attempt to rescue Calvinism from its own internal contradictions and inconsistencies, they all fail, as they must. They must fail because the contradictions and inconsistencies in Reformed Theology are not merely apparent, but very real. No amount of wishful thinking will make them go away, in time or eternity. This should be of concern to anyone seriously thinking about becoming a Calvinist. Even if we were to ignore the contradictions and inconsistencies of Calvinism, which I do not think it wise to do, we still need to ask the question: is Calvinism compatible with Scripture? While it is not possible for a theological system to be self-contradictory and true, it is possible for it to be internally consistent and not true or not true to Scripture. It is the contention of this writer that the Calvinist is saddled with the double burden of being under a system which is both contradictory and unscriptural.

You may have noticed that I use the terms Calvinism and the Reformed faith interchangeably. You may also remember that Harris, a staunch Calvinist, used the terms “Calvinist” and “Reformed” in the same way. For all practical purposes, they are one and the same designation or label and will be used as such throughout this book. For Calvinist Paul Enns is right when he says: To speak of Calvinism is to speak of the Reformed faith. The term Reformed is today basically synonymous with Calvinism and distinguishes the Calvinist churches .. .ⁿ The distinctive doctrines about which I am concerned and that we will consider in The Dark Side of Calvinism are the Calvinist doctrines of salvation and damnation. Calvinism as an entire system of theology is about much more than the doctrines of salvation and damnation. I am not concerned in this book about those other issues, no matter how important they may be. Often when Christians consider the Calvinist or Reformed doctrines of salvation and damnation, they have in mind the Calvinist doctrine of predestination. There is a good reason for equating the Calvinist doctrines of salvation and damnation with the Calvinist doctrine of predestination. For all practical purposes, the advocacy and promotion of the Calvinist doctrine of predestination is advocacy and promotion of the Calvinist doctrines of salvation and damnation. To say (as I do) that many Calvinists are extremely zealous in their commitment to win non-Calvinists (especially non-Calvinist Evangelicals) over to the Reformed version of the Christian faith would be to put it very mildly. In Chosen by God, R. C. Sproul says:

They say there is nothing more obnoxious than a converted drunk.

Try a converted Arminian. Converted Arminians tend to become flaming Calvinists, zealous for the cause of predestination.¹² Sproul goes on to admit:

You are reading the work of such a convert.¹³ In saying that “flaming Calvinists” are by definition “zealous for the cause of predestination,” Sproul was no doubt attempting to inject a little humor into an otherwise serious topic. Nevertheless, the point he humorously makes should be cause for even greater concern. The reason Sproul speaks of “converted Arminians” is due both to his personal conversion from Arminianism to Calvinism and to the widespread and errant view held by Calvinists that all non-Calvinist Evangelicals are by definition Arminian in their theological convictions. Believing they are doing all non-Calvinists a favor by winning them over to Calvinism, many Calvinists have become proselytizers for the Reformed faith. Although some Calvinists are very “good” at winning non-Calvinist Christians into the Reformed faith, there are some obstacles in their way. For as Sproul says: The very word predestination has an ominous ring to it. It is linked to the despairing notion of fatalism and somehow suggests that within its pale we are reduced to meaningless puppets. The word conjures up visions of a diabolical deity who plays capricious games with our lives. We seem to be subjected to the whims of horrible decrees that were fixed in concrete before we were born.¹⁴ But why does the word “predestination” make people think these terrible thoughts? Ironically, it is due (at least in part) to the fact that Calvinists promote a view of predestination which reduces (in their thinking and theology) all people “to meaningless puppets” and subjects some people “to the whims of horrible decrees that were fixed in concrete before” they “were born.” In other words, the very Calvinist doctrinal distinctives that Sproul is “zealous for” and all consistent Calvinists embrace give “predestination” an “ominous ring.” For all practical purposes, Calvinism amounts to Theistic Fatalism. A theist believes in a personal God. A fatalist believes the future (especially regarding the destiny of individuals) is fixed. A Theistic Fatalist believes that a personal God unconditionally determines where individuals go when they die, that is, whether they go to heaven or hell.

Lawrence Vance, one of America’s leading critics of Calvinism, says:

Although Calvinists go out of their way to distance themselves from fatalism, they are in essence teaching the same thing. When a philosopher believes “what is to be will be” it is called determinism. When a stoic believes “what is to be will be” it is called fate. When a Moslem believes “what is to be will be” it is called fatalism. But when a Calvinist believes “what is to be will be” it is called predestination.¹⁵

Wayne Grudem, while attempting to defend Calvinism from the charge of fatalism, gives a very good definition of what I have in mind when I speak of fatalism. Unwittingly, he also concedes Calvinism to be a fatalistic system. According to Grudem: By fatalism is meant a system in which human choices and human decisions really do not make any difference. In fatalism, no matter what we do, things are going to turn out as they have been previously ordained. Therefore, it is futile to try and influence the outcome of events or the outcome of our lives by putting forth any effort or making any significant choices, because these will not make any difference anyway.¹⁶

I have never read a better description of the Calvinist doctrine of predestination than this. When I say that Calvinism amounts to Theistic Fatalism or that it has a dark side, it is not for the purpose of offending Calvinists, though some will no doubt take offense at my use of these words. I use the label Theistic Fatalism because it perfectly describes Reformed Theology. I use the words dark side, because Calvinism has, as a central tenet, a very dark and disturbing distinctive. Everyone seriously considering a theological move in the direction of Reformed Theology deserves to know about Calvinism’s dark side before they make a commitment to Calvinism. Considering Calvin’s own admissions with regard to his doctrine of predestination (i.e., he called it a “horrible” or “dreadful decree”) as it relates to damnation, I am not convinced that Calvin would object to the title of a book called The Dark Side of Calvinism that focused on his distinctive doctrines of reprobation and damnation.

I am also convinced that understanding Calvinism’s dark side before making a commitment to Reformed Theology is the surest way to discourage a thoughtful and scripturally literate Christian from becoming a Calvinist. So there you have it. No hidden agenda. If you are not now a Calvinist, I have written this book with the conviction that given sufficient and accurate information about Reformed Theology, it is not likely you will ever become a Calvinist. If you already are a Calvinist, all I can hope and pray is that you will read through this book with both an open Bible and an open mind. The truth is, some Calvinists do not want non-Calvinists to know the full implications of Calvinism until after they have become committed Calvinists. Even in the context of a church committed to the Reformed faith, some Calvinists think it unwise to introduce a new believer to the truly distinctive doctrines of Reformed Theology early on. From a pragmatic point of view, that is probably a wise course of action. Ethically speaking, it raises some serious questions. Loraine Boettner explains at least one of the reasons (or rationalizations) behind the reluctance of some Calvinists to initially lay it all out on the table early on: In preaching to those who are just beginning the Christian life ... At that early stage little need be said about the deeper truths which relate to God’s part. As in the study of Mathematics we do not begin with algebra and calculus but with the simple problems of arithmetic .¹⁷

“The deeper truths” to which Boettner refers are the distinctive doctrines of Calvinism. If it were only a matter of spiritual milk versus spiritual meat. and what could be described as spiritually age-appropriate information, it would not really be an issue. That is not the case, however. As will be documented in the pages that follow, there is danger and not just difficulty in the theological deep of Reformed doctrine. Some Calvinists are not only less than totally up-front, but they are not even being altogether honest with the non-Calvinists whom they are targeting. In the promotion of doctrines, what is held back or not expressed (relative to those doctrines) can be very misleading. One Reformed Southern Baptist pastor, in an article entitled “Instructions for Local Church Reformation,” advises other Calvinist pastors as follows:

Don’t tackle the whole church at one time. Choose a few men who are sincere, teachable and spiritually minded and spend time with them in study and prayer. They will help you to reform. ... In the pulpit, don’t use theological language that is not found in the Bible.

Avoid terms such as Calvinism, reformed, doctrines of grace, particular redemption, etc. Most people will not know what you are talking about. Many that do will become inflamed against you.¹⁸

Whatever the reason or reasons, many Calvinists, when promoting Reformed Theology to a potential convert to Calvinism, typically limit the discussion to those features that seem positive to the uninitiated. As in so many other areas of life, however, it is what they do not tell you that you really need to know in order to make a truly informed decision. Packaged just right, a little Calvinism may serve as a lure into the Reformed faith. When the dark side of Calvinism is exposed early on, it serves as a very strong deterrent. Most leading proponents of Calvinism know this all too well.

If the distinctives of Calvinism are as unscriptural as I believe (and will prove them to be), then Calvinism undermines the scriptural doctrine of salvation (John 5:16-18, 1 Timothy 2:4, 2 Peter 3:8, etc.). That being the case, I just cannot leave the matter alone. By extension, Reformed Theology must also represent a serious threat to at least some of the people for whom that salvation was provided by Christ’s death on the cross (1 John 2:2, 1 Timothy 2:5-6, Hebrews 2:9, etc.). The salvation that is provided is also the salvation that is offered to them in a truly scriptural proclamation of the gospel of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ (1 Corinthians 15:1-3).

These factors alone more than justify the kind of probe into Reformed Theology that The Dark Side of Calvinism is meant to be. I would, therefore, be spiritually derelict not to impress upon the reader the seriousness of this misguided, no matter how well intended, theological system called Calvinism. As most if not all Calvinists will agree, a great deal is at stake in the debate over the issues involved in this controversy. How we understand the doctrines of salvation and damnation in general, and the gospel of Jesus Christ in particular, is of great biblical, spiritual, and practical importance. In fact, this is the very argument often used by Calvinists to persuade other Christians to reconsider their non-Reformed views in favor of Reformed Theology. So Calvinists should not cry foul when their views are subjected to the same scrutiny for reasons they feel justified in challenging alternative and competing views. Besides, those who advocate Reformed Theology are typically not the “can’t we all just get along?” or “you believe what you believe and I will believe what I believe” kind of Christians. While the temperament of individual Calvinists may cause some to keep their theological convictions a relatively private matter, Calvinism tends to make its adherents more theologically aggressive and spiritually hostile to non-Calvinists than they might otherwise be.

It should, therefore, be emphasized that the doctrinal differences that divide equally sincere and devout believers on both sides of the Calvinist controversy are substantial and serious. To suggest, as some have, that the differences between Calvinists and other Evangelicals are merely semantic and superficial reveals a serious misunderstanding of the core issues involved in this long-standing controversy. Without fear of contradiction, I can confidently say that all knowledgeable Calvinists agree with nonReformed Evangelicals that the issues this book addresses are central to biblical Christianity. There should be no question or controversy on this point. Everyone should also agree that the differences between equally devout Christians on this matter are very pronounced. I have never met a serious and seasoned Calvinist who did not agree with me on at least this much. If you grant these two points (i.e., these issues are central and our differences are substantial) and couple them with the also indisputable fact that many Calvinists feel a need to reach out to and into the non-Calvinist world of Evangelical believers, you should also understand that there is simply no reasonable way to avoid this controversy.

Having said this, I would like to stress that my response to Calvinism is not intended to be and should not be interpreted as a personal attack on anyone. It is unfortunate but understandable that some on both sides of the Calvinist divide will be troubled by the fact that I openly and publicly challenge the views of individuals that are undoubtedly sincere in what they believe. I also realize that naming names is, for many, a Christian writer’s no-no. Ironically, John MacArthur, a five-point Calvinist, comes to my defense (theoretically speaking). First, he asks: Is it inherently unkind or condemnatory to say someone else’s view is errant?¹⁹ He then answers: Not if one has biblical authority for saying so. In fact, to remain silent and allow error to go unexposed and uncorrected is an abdication of the elder’s role (Titus 1:9). The apostle Paul publicly called Peter a hypocrite for compromising biblical principles (Galatians 2:11-15). Peter had been publicly hypocritical; it was right that he be rebuked publicly (cf. 1 Timothy 5:20). To disagree with or critique someone’s published views does not constitute a personal attack.²⁰ MacArthur goes on to say:

If the Church cannot tolerate polemic dialogue between opposing views—especially if Christian leaders cannot be held accountable for whether their teaching is biblical—then error will have free reign.²¹ On this we agree. Let there be no mistake, however, about one thing. In the world of contemporary evangelicalism, at least as far as American Christendom goes, if anyone is on the attack, it is the Calvinist. If I am right in my assessment of Calvinism relative to the Reformed doctrines of redemption and reprobation, it is my scriptural and spiritual obligation to defend the truth of Scripture from the distortion and challenge of Reformed doctrine. My contention is that Calvinism is not simply a protest or correction of the errors of the Roman Catholic Church, as so many mistakenly believe. Instead, it is a challenge to all Christians everywhere who believe God has a saving love for and saving interest in all of mankind, as expressed in John 3:16, 1 Timothy 2:4, 2 Peter 3:9, and elsewhere throughout the pages of Scripture. As is thoroughly documented in the pages that follow, in Reformed Theology, God’s redemptive love is not only minimized but also outright denied to untold millions of desperately lost souls. God’s holy character and nature, however unwittingly, is also called into question. Not only so, but the very cross of Christ is theologically robbed of all value for countless millions of people who desperately need the forgiveness and cleansing that can only come from the Savior’s precious blood (1 Peter 1:18-19). The Reformed doctrine of a limited atonement, if it says anything at all, says this.

According to Reformed Theology, the world that God loved with a saving love is not as big as one might think from a reading of Scripture. Even those Calvinists who believe God loves all people have redefined that love, in their thinking and theology, to exclude any kind of saving grace for some of the people they say God loves. I know these are serious charges. Be assured that I do not make them lightly and, in fact, take no pleasure in making them. Realizing how serious these charges are, I have gone to great lengths in order to support them with irrefutable facts. I know that on every matter of substance and importance defended in this book there will be those who dispute what I say. I am equally confident that they will not be able to refute what I say. The reason I can say this without fear of contradiction is that I have carefully compared what Calvin and his followers teach with what our Lord and His apostles taught. It will, of course, be up to you to decide for yourself whether or not I have done my homework. It will also be up to you to decide if you believe the evidence supports my contention that Calvinist distinctives contradict scriptural doctrine.

If for some sad and unfortunate reason you believe the subject of God’s saving love for mankind is unimportant, the matters that this book addresses will not likely hold your interest. If, however, you believe that nothing could be more important to the entire population of this planet in general and that nothing should be more important to the people of God in particular, then you should also understand how serious this matter is. We can take John 3:16 at face value or we can allow Calvinism to devalue, in our thinking and theology, the wonderful truth contained and conveyed in this and many other precious, important, and powerful passages of Scripture. We cannot do both.

What if Calvinists were content to simply win the lost to Christ and then build them up in the Reformed faith? If that were all that Calvinists were doing, they would hear little or nothing from me. Contemporary champions of Calvinism—men like R. C. Sproul, John Piper, James R. White. John MacArthur, and a host of others—are not simply promoting Reformed Theology among those new believers that they have led to Christ or that have come to them for spiritual guidance. Instead, as noted earlier, Calvinists are zealously proselytizing for the Reformed faith. If you are a part of a nonReformed Evangelical Christian church or affiliation of churches, it is very likely that Calvinists have their sights set on winning you. Ready or not, they are coming for you and your church or church group (if they have not already arrived). So much of the energy expended by Calvinists, energy that could and should be spent winning the lost to the Savior, is spent trying to win nonCalvinist Christians into the Reformed faith. Some Calvinists evidently see this as their sacred duty and primary calling in life. National organizations and nationally-syndicated radio programs have been established to aggressively challenge the views of any Christian or Christian church that does not agree with the distinctive doctrines of Calvinism, no matter what their commitment to the essentials of the historic and orthodox Christian faith is. Apparently, some Calvinists see themselves on the front lines of a spiritual and theological battle. They see themselves as Calvinists (and for Calvinism) fighting for the hearts and minds of the greater Evangelical Christian community. They desire to liberate non-Calvinist Christians from a Reformed-free faith. They actually view and treat many of the most dearly held convictions of non-Calvinist Evangelicals as symptomatic of a spiritual and theological disease, of which Reformed Theology is supposedly the CURE.²²

Sproul and a number of other proponents of Calvinism have managed to work themselves into historically non-Calvinist communities (some say stealthily). They do this by offering help in what can be considered theologically neutral areas of general concern to Christians of all theological persuasions. They may present themselves as defenders of biblical inerrancy or experts on the dangers of the cults, but it is their Calvinist paradigm that they are most passionate to promote among those individual Christians and churches not already committed to the Reformed faith.

Without a doubt, some Calvinists really do want to help non-Calvinists on matters that are unrelated to Calvinism. Without hesitation, I would include Sproul in that company. All that I know of him and have read about him suggests that he is a man of impeccable integrity. I can only wish that Sproul and all other Calvinists were a little more up-front about what does sometimes turn out to be a hidden agenda. Once the Calvinist gains the confidence of the non-Calvinist or the non-Calvinist church (often endearing himself in the process), he may be given the freedom to discuss the Calvinist worldview—what might otherwise be an unwelcome topic.

Why, might you ask, do Calvinists want non-Calvinists to become Calvinists? One reason is that Calvinism is by nature more or less evan gelistically sterile, depending on how consistently the Calvinist applies his Calvinism. Thus, for Calvinist churches to grow, they need to bring nonCalvinists into the Reformed faith. Despite the many and loud protests of Calvinists to the contrary, Calvinism as a system of theology is not all that encouraging to evangelism and Calvinists are typically not all that effective (and sometimes not even all that interested) in winning the lost to Christ. Another reason is more theological in nature and perhaps motivated from genuine but misguided charity toward the non-Calvinist. That is, many leading advocates for the Calvinist cause and crusade are convinced that only Calvinists believe in and embrace the doctrines of grace. If Calvinists were to qualify this view by saying that only Calvinists believe in the Calvinist version of grace, I would agree. For it cannot be reasonably denied that Calvinists hold to a distinctive definition of grace. Whether or not they are right in the way they define grace is an altogether different matter. Nevertheless, Loraine Boettner, in The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination (a textbook for many in Reformed academia), boasts: The doctrine that men are saved only through the unmerited love and grace of God finds its full and honest expression only in the doctrines of Calvinism.²³ Does this mean that non-Reformed Evangelicals embrace a partial and dishonest doctrine of salvation? Surely, such claims call for a critical examination and evaluation of Calvinism in light of Scripture. That is exactly what this book offers. I neither pull any theological punches in The Dark Side of Calvinism, nor do I hit below the spiritual belt. I am absolutely convinced that a factually and scripturally based refutation of Calvinism is impossible without a fair and accurate representation of Calvinism. While I will be accused by some of misrepresenting Calvinism, a fair and objective reading of this book will prove otherwise. If you are a convinced and committed Calvinist, I know that it will be difficult (though not impossible) for you to stay with me long enough to find out for yourself that what I call Calvinism s in fact the real thing. Can you objectively listen to the scripturally based arguments and evidence against Reformed Theology? If you can, I believe it is very likely that you will discover that Calvinism is in serious conflict with the truth of God’s Word on a number of important matters related to the great and gracious saving work of God.

WHAT WE AGREE ON

Despite the sometimes serious and substantial differences between Calvinists and non-Calvinists, all Evangelicals agree, at least in principle, on the importance and priority of Scripture. As Sproul says: A brief glance at church history reveals that the debate over predestination is not between liberals and conservatives or between believers and unbelievers. It is a debate among believers, among godly and earnest Christians.²⁴

All devout believers have a formally agreed upon standard by which to judge and evaluate all doctrines which they claim to be biblical. It is not Calvin’s Institutes of the Christian Religion, The Canons of Dort, The Westminster Confession of Faith, or The Heidelberg Catechism that should be the determining factor as to what we believe.²⁵ It is not Augustine, Calvin, or Edwards²⁶ that we are to rely upon for our understanding of the truth. I wholeheartedly agree with the reformers, Calvinist and non-Calvinist, in affirming Sola Scriptura. Every Christian not only has the right, but the responsibility to personally search the Scriptures to discern what they mean by what they say (2 Timothy 2:15-17, 2 Peter 1:20-21, Acts 17:11, Matthew 22:29). As Christians, we can and should learn from our spiritual elders. We are not bound, however, to what they taught unless it passes the objective test of scriptural truth. Since many pioneers of Reformed Theology disagreed so seriously among themselves, they do not always serve as a reliable guide in the pursuit of biblical truth. The widely acclaimed Calvinist writing team of David Steele and Curtis Thomas correctly states: The question of supreme importance is not how the system under consideration came to be formulated into five points, or why it was named Calvinism, but rather is it supported by Scripture? The final court of appeal for determining the validity of any theological system is the inspired, authoritative Word of God. If Calvinism can be verified by clear and explicit declaration of Scripture, then it must be received by Christians; if not, it must be rejected.²⁷ Loraine Boettner could not be more right than when he says: The Scriptures are the final authority by which systems are to be judged.²⁸ Not only so, but: In all matters of controversy between Christians, the Scriptures are accepted as the highest court of appeal.²⁹ Charles Hodge accurately speaks for all thoughtful Evangelicals when he says:

It is the duty of every theologian to subordinate his theories to the Bible, and teach not what seems to him to be true or reasonable, but simply what the Bible teaches.³⁰ In principle then, I would agree with Calvinists as to how to evaluate a theological system or any of the distinctives of that system. This principle can be stated as follows: All Christians are obliged to believe and embrace all views that agree with the teaching of Scripture. Conversely, if the distinctives of a theological system are found to be in conflict with the teaching of God’s holy and infallible Word, that system or the errant distinctives of that system ought to be rejected. Orthodoxy can ask nothing more or less. With all of my heart, I embrace the grace of God and the fundamental and foundational truth that salvation is by grace and grace alone (Ephesians 2:8-10). Unbelievers are absolutely and utterly dependent upon the grace of God to save them. Believers are absolutely and utterly dependent upon the grace of God to sustain them. I am insulted by the Calvinist’s distinctive definition of grace, but not because I oppose salvation by grace alone. With all that is within me, I believe and rejoice in God’s saving and sustaining grace. I am deeply troubled over the Reformed version of grace because through it, the precious and scriptural truths concerning grace are so maligned. I reject Reformed Theology because in it I find a scripturally distorted, spiritually offensive, and thoroughly unsatisfying substitute for God’s saving grace.

All this is to say that the true grace of God is neither promoted nor protected in the distinctives of Reformed Theology. At best, Reformed Theology misrepresents God’s saving grace in order that it may appear to correspond and conform to the equally disturbing Reformed views of sovereignty and predestination. For example, for those in a hopeless caste of humanity that Calvinists call the reprobate, Reformed Theology denies even the existence of a grace intended to save them. (The term caste is appropriate, not class, since one is inexorably bound in one’s caste, but can move from one class to another.) Calvinists, of course, contend that the grace of God is not insufficient to save the unsavable caste. The Calvinist will rightly say that it is not the fault of the grace of God that many people cannot be saved. Calvinists wrongly say or suggest that it is the God of grace Himself that is ultimately responsible (or to blame) for the plight of the reprobate. Blaming God for the damnation of those who end up in hell is either explicit or implicit in all forms of authentic Calvinism. The charges I have leveled against Calvinism are true and are well documented in the writings of its most respected champions. If you do not like what I say about Calvinism, take it up with your Calvinist friends. This is what I have done. I have carefully read the writings of leading Calvinists both past and present. I know the difference between Calvinists who are considered mainstream and those who are considered extreme. Like Spurgeon, I can honestly and accurately say that when I speak of Calvinism:

I speak of it as I find it in Calvin’s Institutes, and especially in his Expositions. I have read them carefully. I take not my views of Calvinism from common repute but from his books.³¹

Reformed professor and pastor, Douglas Wilson, is one of several contributors to Back to Basics: Rediscovering the Richness of the Reformed Faith. In a review of my earlier book, Wilson, to the consternation of many Calvinists, says:

George Bryson is a very unusual non-Calvinist. He is able to describe the doctrinal position of Calvinism without putting any extra eggs in the pudding. His descriptions are fair and accurate, and he clearly knows his subject. The first portion of the book, the place where he does all this, is very good. ... The name of this book is The Five Points of Calvinism: Weighed and Found Wanting.³²

Although Wilson then criticizes the second half of the book, here he acknowledges several important facts with regard to my understanding and treatment of Calvinism. For this I am grateful. I especially appreciate the fact that he did not play the Arminian card but was able to simply refer to me as a non-Calvinist. While such a label does not tell you much about what I believe, it is, as far as it goes, accurate. The label that Calvinists attach to non-Calvinist Evangelicals almost universally is that of Arminianism. In my case, as in the case of hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of nonCalvinist Evangelicals, the Arminian label is simply not accurate.³³

EITHER/OR? The idea that an Evangelical could be neither Calvinist nor Arminian, or some kind of theological hybrid called a Calminian, is simply unthinkable to most leading Calvinists. Boettner speaks for most leading advocates of Reformed Theology when he says:

It must be evident that there are just two theories which can be maintained by evangelical Christians upon this important subject; that all men who have made any study of it, and who have reached any settled conclusions regarding it, must be either Calvinists or Arminians. There is no other position which a “Christian” can take.³⁴ According to Reformed theologian G. T. Shedd:

Ultimately, there can be only two alternatives in evangelical understanding of the Christian Faith, the Calvinistic and the Arminian.³⁵ Shedd also reasoned that for Christian believers, these two views are the only options that are:

... Logically possible ... [and] in the future, as the past, all evangelical believers will belong either to one dogmatic division or the other.³⁶ In other words, if your conclusions are the result of study, assuming you are a Christian, you will agree with Boettner and Shedd. This approach apparently makes it easier for some Calvinists to dismiss any case against Calvinism. It does so by virtue of the fact that Calvinists are satisfied that Arminianism has been refuted. Just like those who mistakenly supposed that Jesus was born in Galilee and used that as their excuse not to accept Him as the Messiah of Israel, so Boettner and Shedd conclude all nonCalvinist Evangelicals must be Arminians. This results from the fact that either many Calvinists choose not to hear what non-Reformed mainstream Evangelicals are saying or they do not evidently understand what they are saying. For the record, it is precisely because I have carefully studied this matter as a Christian that I am neither a Calvinist nor an Arminian. I cannot speak for every mainstream Evangelical, but I can speak for myself. I know what I believe and I know what James Arminius believed. I know the views of the Remonstrance.³⁷ I also understand the views of the many contemporary derivatives in the Arminian tradition, especially those most heavily influenced by the architect of modern day Arminianism, John Wesley.

Although I do not agree with even one of the distinctives of Calvinism, I disagree with all of the distinctives of Arminianism as well. This does not mean that I do not agree with them on some important issues related to the biblical doctrines of salvation and damnation. I do. For example, I believe strongly that Arminians are right about the universal provision of an atonement that makes salvation possible for all, but applicable only for those who believe. That is, I believe God has provided through Christ on the cross an atoning substitutionary sacrifice, so all can be saved. With Arminians, I also believe that the redemptive and atoning benefits of Christ’s death are effectively restricted to those who through faith alone in Christ alone become both:

• Justified by God alone (Romans 8:33)

And:

• Regenerated by God alone (John 1:12-13)

While the Calvinist doctrine of a limited atonement, which says Christ died redemptively only for some, is a distinctive of Calvinism, it is not the case that a universal atonement is a distinctive of Arminianism. That is, belief in a provisionally unlimited atonement does not set Arminians apart from most other believers. A universal atonement, provisionally speaking, is common to almost all, if not all, other orthodox believers. To confuse all non-Calvinist views with Arminianism is as careless as confusing Calvinism with Roman Catholicism by virtue of the fact that Calvinists and Catholics both agree with the teachings of the Trinity, the virgin birth of Christ, and a host of other important doctrinal matters. Even so, Calvinists should not confuse all non-Calvinist Evangelicals with Arminians by virtue of the fact that they share some important theological views. Even the well-established fact that both Romanism and Calvinism have historical and theological roots in the thinking and theology of one man, Augustine, would not justify the silly notion that Calvinists are Roman Catholics or that Roman Catholics are Calvinists. Their respective views are simply too divergent to make such a claim.

I not only agree with some aspects of Arminian theology on salvation, I also agree with Calvinists on some important matters related to the biblical doctrine of salvation. For example, I am persuaded that all true believers are absolutely secure in Christ. This is in contrast to what Arminians believe and in agreement with what Calvinists teach. This, however, does not mean I believe in the Calvinist doctrine of perseverance of the saints, a truly distinctive doctrine of Calvinism, which is often confused with, but actually undermines, what I believe to be a truly biblical doctrine of eternal security.

While I find much to agree with in the teachings of Calvinists and Arminians, I cannot rightly claim to be either and should not be accused of or confused with either. For I disagree with all of the distinctives of both theological systems. The fact is that Arminians and Calvinists agree with each other on some matters of theological importance, even matters related to the great and gracious saving work of God.

It should be apparent to all thoughtful Christians that agreements between Calvinists and Arminians do not necessarily make Calvinists partly Arminian or Arminians partly Calvinists any more than they make me a Calvinist, Arminian, or Calminian. Now, if I subscribed to one or more of the distinctives of either one or both of these theological systems, it would be a different matter. I simply have no reasonable right, however, to call myself a Calvinist if I deny all of the distinctives of Calvinism. So too. Calvinists have no reasonable right to call me an Arminian. This, of course, will not keep some from doing so.

SCRIPTURALLY SOUND ALTERNATIVE

There is a scripturally sound and logically consistent alternative to both Calvinism and Arminianism. With a little theological tongue in cheek, though not much, I will refer to that alternative, at least initially, as Biblicism. This would make me a Biblicist. If you stay with me through the end of this book, you will know what I believe and why I believe it. For a Biblicist, the errors and extremes of any system can only be fully appreciated and properly evaluated in contradistinction to the truth of God’s Word. Thus, the reader will not be left to wonder what I believe Scripture actually teaches on the most important issues with which this book is concerned. For most Christians, even without a fully developed and systematically stated alternative to Calvinism, a simple and unbiased comparison of what Calvinism teaches with what Scripture says is sufficient to raise all kinds of theological red flags. You can test my thesis as follows: Take any important passage directly addressing the doctrine of salvation. Read it carefully, keeping in mind the immediate and greater contextual considerations. Then on a piece of paper, write down what you think the meaning of that passage is. Then look at what Calvin and other Reformed luminaries have to say about the same passage. It is highly unlikely that you will be able to see what they see unless and until they show it to you. Even then, they may have to be very persuasive and do some theological arm twisting to get you to agree with them.