CLICK FOR A .PDF COPY OF THIS ARTICLE
Can I be a Calvinist
and be
Free Grace?
-Dr. Fred R. Lybrand
Honestly, I get this question a lot. Most Arminians aren’t in our conversations among Free Grace advocates because of their conviction that one can lose his eternal life. Calvinists do affirm the security of the believer, so we are in the same basic conversation. In my book Back to Faith I take Calvinism to task, but only a bit. The confusion around Perseverance (is it that we persevere in works, persevere in faith, or that God perseveres in keeping us safely His children forever?) is the big issue I think some forms of Calvinism fumble over. On the other hand, there is a great debt of gratitude owed to Calvin and the Reformers in my own understanding and tradition. Am I Free Grace and a Calvinist?
What Makes one a Calvinist?
What really makes one a ‘Calvinist’? I don’t think we’ve done a fair job defining this among ourselves, and as a result we have some of our number at times condemning all things Calvin. Most of the time we say being a Calvinist is all about the ‘5 Points’. In particular the notion is almost ubiquitous that if you believe in one point, then you must believe in all five points because it is a ‘system’—so the argument goes. I don’t believe it is a system, nor do I believe that one must accept all five points (even logically)…I’ll prove it in a minute. Indeed, if I had to be labeled, I’d request that you consider me a 1.5 Arminian!
The following chart is from the Moody Handbook of Theology (p. 490). It involves a little more than the 5 Points, but gets the issue in focus.
CALVINISM AND ARMINIANISM CONTRASTED
| Doctrine Arminianism Calvinism | ||
|
Depravity |
As a result of the Fall, man has inherited a corrupted nature. Prevenient grace has removed the guilt and condemnation of Adam’s sin. |
As a result of the Fall, man is totally depraved and dead in sin; he is unable to save himself. Because he is dead in sin, God must initiate salvation. |
|
Imputation of Sin |
God did not impute to the entire human race through Adam’s sin, but all people inherit a corrupt nature as a result of Adam’s fall. |
Through Adam’s transgression, sin was imputed—passed to the entire race so that all people are born in sin. |
|
Election |
God elected those whom He knew would believe of their own free will. Election is conditional, based on man’s response in faith. |
God unconditionally, from eternity past, elected some to be saved. Election is not based on man’s future response. |
|
Atonement of Christ |
Christ died for the entire human race, making all mankind saveable. His death is effective only in those who believe. |
God determined that Christ would die for all those whom God elected. Since Christ did not die for everyone but only for those who were elected to be saved, His death is completely successful. |
|
Grace |
Through prevenient or preparatory grace, which is given to all people, man is able to cooperate with God and respond to Him in salvation. Prevenient grace reverses the effects of Adam’s sin. |
Common grace is extended to all mankind but is insufficient to save anyone. Through irresistible grace God drew to Himself those whom He had elected, making them willing to respond. |
|
Will of Man |
Prevenient grace is given to all people and is exercised on the entire person, giving man a free will. |
Depravity extends to all of man, including his will. Without irresistible grace man’s will remains bound, unable to respond to God on its own ability. |
|
Perseverance |
Believers may turn from grace and lose their salvation. |
Believers will persevere in the faith. Believers are secure in their salvation; none will be lost. |
|
Sovereignty of God |
God limits His control in accordance with man’s freedom and response. His decrees are related to His foreknowledge of what man’s response will be. |
God’s sovereignty is absolute and unconditional. He has determined all things according to the good pleasure of His will. His foreknowledge originates in advanced planning, not in advanced information. |
There is a good bit of discussion out there about the ‘perseverance point’—whether it is about persevering in good works, persevering in faith (as the Moody Handbook claims), or God persevering in keeping one saved (preservation of the saints). How many of us have read the Canons of Dort of late? I have read the Canons of Dort over and over recently, and I can tell you that:
-
-
- All three types of ‘perseverance’ are mentioned in the Canons of Dort
- The focus of the point concerning perseverance IS the eternal security of the believer (and his assurance).
-
I know this all sounds a little stuffy and theological, but George Bernard Shaw weighs in here for us:
No man ever believes that the Bible means what it says: He is always convinced that it says what he means.
The Bible is what matters not any particular theological system. Theological systems are great when they match the Word because they help us make sense, remember, and expand what we observe. But, why is Dort the definition of Calvinism? Personally, I think it just turns out to be a rhetorical stronghold.
Here are a few facts to consider:
-
-
- The Canons of Dort was a RESPONSE to the Five Articles of the Remonstrance
- It was a localized debate in Holland (hence TULIP ?)
- It was authored 55 years after Calvin’s death
- There are other statements like Heidelberg and Westminster, and many other variations of Calvinism (please read Spurgeon & Hyper-Calvinism by Iain H. Murray).
-
What is a Calvinist? In the Evangelical Dictionary of Theology (ed. Walter Elwell), Calvinism is defined by the three tenants of
-
-
- Sola Scriptura (Scripture alone)
- Soli Deo gloria (God’s glory alone)
- Sola fidei (Faith alone)
-
The EDT article goes on to admit the variation and development of theological thought in Calvinism. It is clearly the Reformed faith, but Covenant-Reformed like Covenant-Calvinism, is a branch or variation of Calvinism. In our day, a few popular leaders have taken the rhetorical road of claiming that they alone are the true Calvinists…and…if you ain’t a 5 Pointer, you ain’t a real Calvinist (B.B. Warfield would call non-5 pointers ‘bad’ Calvinists; others would call them ‘inconsistent’ Calvinists).
So why all the fuss? The reason is pretty simple— Free Grace folks have gotten immersed in the frayed rhetoric. The concern is that we can inadvertently come across as ‘banishing’ those who belong with us. The fears we have are not based on the real nature of things. Yes, you can be a Calvinist and be a Free Grace advocate (I think I’m one)! As to being a semi-Arminian or 5-Point-Covenant-Reformed person and being Free Grace, well that’s a different article. If you are a Hyper-Calvinist or a Hyper-Arminian, then you won’t want to join with us.
It is the Covenant of the FGA that guides our membership. Quite frankly (as Dr. Zuck wrote me) it is a very well-crafted statement of our basic view. There is nothing in it that excludes a person who has Calvinistic convictions.
How to Kill the Argument
I’d like to finally kill the argument — ‘if you buy one point you must buy all 5’ — that seems to be accepted as a given in many circles. I could walk through the logic of it and display why the nature of the atonement and eternal security are not necessarily what follows from the other points; but I can do something better. I can show you how almost no Free Grace person really believes that the 5 Points of Calvinism lead to the misunderstanding of Lordship Salvation. That is actually the real issue. I’ll lay it out in a sequence:
-
-
- If the 5 points of Calvinism (Canons of Dort) are a system and must be believed together
- Then the 5 points of Arminianism (Remonstrance) are a system and must be believed together as well. This is particularly true because the Canons of Dort was developed as a REACTION TO the Remonstrance.
- So, if one believes one point of Arminiansim, then he must believe all 5 points.
- Many Free Grace advocates affirm Unlimited Atonement (Christ died for all and not just for the elect)
- Therefore, they (#4) must also believe in falling from grace (losing one’s salvation / eternal life) as one of the points of Arminianism.
-
Said differently, I know lots of Free Grace folks who believe in Unlimited Atonement AND who believe in eternal security. They are, in effect, 1 Point Arminians (at least). The claimed logical connection is bogus. All systems are ‘logical’—but there are additional aspects to logic, such as the issue of whether or not a premise is true or whether the chain of logic really follows.
Of course you can be a Calvinist and be Free Grace, but certain kinds of Calvinists are definitely not Free grace. Of course you can be basically Arminian and be Free Grace (but you must reject the idea of ‘losing your salvation’).
Our views and our systems are always struggling—we are trying to answer the most questions while raising the fewest problems. To be Free Grace, the issue isn’t about our theological systems as much as it is THE GOSPEL. Some systems make keeping the gospel clear an easy thing, while others make it quite a challenge.
Here is the basic FGA Covenant…which isn’t about Calvin or Arminius, but rather it is about the word of grace:
As members of the Evangelical Tradition, we affirm the Bible alone, and the Bible in its entirety, is the inspired Word of God and is therefore inerrant in the autographs. Furthermore, God is a Trinity, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, each an uncreated person, one in essence, equal in power and glory. As members of this tradition, we are concerned about the clear understanding, presentation, and advancement of the Gospel of God’s Free Grace.
We affirm the following:
- The Grace of God in justification is an unconditional free gift.
- The sole means of receiving the free gift of eternal life is faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, whose substitutionary death on the cross fully satisfied the requirement for our justification.
- Faith is a personal response, apart from our works, whereby we are persuaded that the finished work of Jesus Christ has delivered us from condemnation and guaranteed our eternal life.
- Justification is the act of God to declare us righteous when we believe in Jesus Christ alone.
- Assurance of justification is the birthright of every believer from the moment of faith in Jesus Christ, and is founded upon the testimony of God in His written Word.
- Spiritual growth, which is distinct from justification, is God’s expectation for every believer; this growth, however, is not necessarily manifested uniformly in every believer.
- The Gospel of Grace should always be presented with such clarity and simplicity that no impression is left that justification requires any step, response, or action in addition to faith in the Lord Jesus Christ.
FGA Covenant:
In agreement with these affirmations, we covenant to work together graciously and enthusiastically to advance this Gospel of Grace, and to communicate with a positive and gracious tone toward all others, both inside and outside the Free Grace Alliance.
As an added point, John Nelson Darby, the ‘father’ of dispensational theology was a proponent of many Calvanistic beliefs…
Darby defended Calvinist doctrines when they came under attack from within the Church in which he once served. His biographer Goddard states, “Darby indicates his approval of the doctrine of the Anglican Church as expressed in Article XVII of the Thirty-Nine Articles” on the subject of election and predestination. Darby said:
“For my own part, I soberly think Article XVII to be as wise, perhaps I might say the wisest and best condensed human statement of the view it contains that I am acquainted with. I am fully content to take it in its literal and grammatical sense. I believe that predestination to life is the eternal purpose of God, by which, before the foundations of the world were laid, He firmly decreed, by His counsel secret to us, to deliver from curse and destruction those whom He had chosen in Christ out of the human race, and to bring them, through Christ, as vessels made to honour, to eternal salvation.” [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Nelson_Darby]
Millard J. Erickson in his Christian Theology (Volume II, p. 835), as he analyzes the extent of the Atonement, weighs in on the reality of Calvinism subject to modification (or moderation)—
The view that we are adopting here should not be construed as Arminianism. It is rather the most moderate form of Calvinism or; as some would term it, a modification of Calvinism.
Let’s keep perspective and united with all who affirm faith alone in Christ alone according to our FGA Covenant as a reflection of God’s Word. Can you be a Calvinist and be Free Grace? Of course, but labels often complicate the conversation. Yet, denying one’s clear Arminian or Calvinistic bent tends to confuse things all the more; no matter our wish, much of the conversation has been had for eons and we remain in the flow of it.
Pick your label or deny your label; but do you affirm faith alone in Christ alone—communicating this alone? Then join us in the good fight.
Grace and Truth,
Fred Lybrand
Former FGA President (2008/2009)
CLICK FOR A .PDF COPY OF THIS ARTICLE
[tweetmeme source=”fredlybrand” only_single=false]
Brilliant article, Fred! This is the conversation that needs to take place! The points you made are very good and I love how you showed that a person doesn’t have to believe all 5 points of Calvinism.
I will definitely be passing this on!
Brandon,
I really feel the same about the need for this conversation to take place. Sometimes our logic is too theoretical and less straight up (straight up means we are simply asking if something makes sense or not).
I’m also concerned that our neo-puritin Calvinist friends have captured some high rhetorical ground and convinced many that their version of Calvinism is the only true version.
Thanks for the cheers and DO pass it along.
FRL
Excellent article Fred, and throught provoking. My first exposure to FG made it appear that FG and Calvinism were more-or-less mutually/logically exclusive. Upon further investigation though it seemed an odd view since some that many would consider pioneers of Free Grace were also self-labeled Calvinists. Ryrie, I believe, professes/ed to be a “moderate” Calvinist. Bob Wilkin, back when the GES was on track, told me he considered himself a moderate Calvinist at the time as well… yet both also champion/ed FG.
You once wrote, “[I]if your view excludes or denies legitimacy to those who have been the leaders in the movement, then your view is historically invalid.” Though you were writing to a different topic I think it’s no stretch to apply the same principe to this as well.
Stephen,
I think you’ve got it! It is curious how we shift in our understanding but sometimes don’t recognize we have become unteathered from the dock of our tradition. Tradition isn’t authoritative, but it is informative. We also shouldn’t claim to be a part of something we are not…nor should we deny something we essentially embrace.
A moderate view of Calvinism has been around (legitimately so) since Calvin. I’m pretty sure Calvin was a moderate Calvinist! Frankly, it seems like we ought to simply accept the point and move along. Unfortunately, some of us are busy thinking in really tight boxes that serve only to misunderstand the issue and one another.
God bless,
FRL
Hey Fred,
Your statement regarding labels really goes to the heart of the matter: “Can you be a Calvinist and be Free Grace? Of course, but labels often complicate the conversation.”
If someone asked me that question, my reply would be, “What do you mean by the term Calvinist?”
As I mentioned in our discussion over on Facebook, Norm Geisler refers to himself as a “moderate Calvinist.” And yet many “Classical Calvinists” label him as an Arminian.
It seems to me that an Arminian, to a “Classical Calvinist,” is anyone who is a little bit less Calvinistic than they are. And a HYPER-Calvinist, to a “Classical Calvinist,” is anyone who is a little bit more Calvinistic than they are.
Bob
Hello Fred,
You are challenging as per normal. Right off the top though I must say again how impressed I am with how the FGA Covenant maintains both clarity and biblical fidelity.
A further aside; any person investigating the three positions we most often discuss the Promise Only GES Gospel, the Lordship Gospel and the Gospel of Grace must be logically convinced by this following fact. The Gospel of Grace is the only of the three which can be stated in plain English so that it agrees exactly with a plain reading of Scripture.
That being said, and with my highest possible respect I do find a rare error with your logic in this article.
You equate the two 5 point systems as equal and then build an argument on this bases.
“if the 5 points of Calvinism…. THEN the 5 points of Arminianism”
I am not as familiar with the 5 Points of Arminianism, but I’m still confident enough to say that these two systems are devised by men, and different men at that. Based on this assumption, it is most reasonable to expect they are of unequal quality in various respects.
I’ve examined the 5 Points of Calvinism known as TULIP. This system, as has been explained to me by multiple parties, is circular in every respect. It is self dependent and self confirming.
I do not know if Arminianism can be said to be the same.
For as you rightly note Unlimited Atonement does not flow from a doctrine that says you can loose your salvation, or vice-versa.
Arminianism is a system, but it is not a system akin to TULIP. Even though the Cannons of Dort were a response to the 5 Points of Remonstrance.
I fully, and without reservation, admit that on any given day you dwarf me with your ability to logically examine things. However, this day, in this instance, I think you’ve equated two things which are not equal and have therefore come to an erroneous result.
That being said, I do believe that a person CAN be a moderate Calvinist, however they can not be a moderate AND a consistent Calvinist at the same time. I was previously a moderate Calvinist myself. Now I hold to the spirit of the affirmations, which are summed up in the three points you mention;
Sola Scriptura (Scripture alone) Soli Deo gloria (God’s glory alone) Sola fidei (Faith alone)
But not the system or methodology of the system that claims to promote these which is popularly referred to as TULIP.
So… if the Sola Scripture, Deo Gloria, and Fidei are the definition of a Calvinist then I am a Calvinist who is also Free Grace. 🙂
Was that complicated enough?
Kev
Okay, I know that labels at times only serve to confuse the issues. But C. Gordon Olson has a label that I like called “mediate theology.” It probably describes what some people call “moderate calvinism.”
See: http://www.mediatetheology.org/
Bob
While I cheer for Gordon, I don’t particularly view his mediate theology as an innovation or an answer. I agree with much of it (I think), and disagree with some of it (I’m sure). Most of these issues come down to whether one honors mystery or explains mystery. Some of his points have been held by Arminians, and other points by moderate Calvinists. It is a blend, but for the most part I think Olsen’s view is basically Arminian with Eternal Security affirmed. I really do appreciate the distinction between being a believer and a disciple (between justification and sanctification).
Here’s an example. He believes ‘not total ability’ AND ‘not total inability’. But, of course, the question is about ability. Man is able or unable to respond to God. There is no partial ability (that is inability). Well, man is assisted by the Holy Spirit…great…but if there is no Holy Spirit, then there is only inability. Whether our strict Calvinist friends say ‘God must give the faith’…or…Gordon Olsen says ‘the Holy Spirit must prepare the sinner for faith’ seems like what it is…symantics. It is still inability (the word ‘total’ is a redundancy in my view).
I just say, “Mystery.” God draws, woos, enables….Man believes with his own faith. All of this bumps into the sovereignty / responsibility problem. The only way to go is either to give God the final say (Calvinism) or to give man the final say (Olsen/Arminianism). The other option is to give them both the final say (mystery) and let God explain it when He is good and ready to do so (Lybrand).
Again, cheers and grace,
FRL
Grace,
FRL
Hey Kev,
Excellent thoughts here, but let me defend my sloshing logic.
In the article I said, “If the 5 points…etc.”
The operative word is IF. I don’t actually believe that TULIP is a tight system at all. I think 3 of the 5 points flow from one to the other, but the other 2 (unlimited atonement and perseverance-so called-) aren’t the only logical steps that can be rationally made.
For example, there is nothing inherent in the logic of God’s saving the elect that means the elect must actually do good works until the end. The essential point is about Eternal Security (the elect can’t become un-elect). The Canons of Dort go to great lengths to share how awfully an elect soul can sin, but that the same soul must ‘come back’ finally to holiness.
Theologically I’d say, “Huh?”
That assumption is not built from the judicial nature of justification by faith, but rather from an assumption about the work of God’s Spirit in the elect soul.
In that the 5 points came up as a response (reaction?) to the Remonstrance, I’m simply saying that the logical argument itself is silly (at best).
The Canons of Dort also asserts that elect parents will have elect kids if they are baptized (hence in the covenant community in parallel to circumcision with Israel). Elect parents having elect kids COULD follow from the ‘system’, but elect parents having non-elect kids COULD ALSO follow from the system (and the Bible…see Ezekiel 18).
The realities of logic and sequences (sequitur arguments) don’t always follow (hence non sequitur).
The Remonstrance is a ‘logical system’ too…but the bias among both Calvinists and Anti-Calvinists plays down this fact. The Remonstrance was TOTALLY about their LOGIC. Most systems are actually ‘logical’—but, as you and I both know, “bad premise, bad conclusion” (even if it does follow / is sequitur).
I believe Arminianism is as much a system as TULIP is…largely because it isn’t much of a system at all. TULIP intersects with only a few points regarding the nature of God’s will and salvation. Inherent in both is a major missing fact:
The believer is a different creature after salvation than before salvation.
Sadly, many Calvinists (hyper & often 5-pointers) continues to talk about the believer as though ‘depravity’ still hold true. Not only is it biblically indefensible, it is logically flawed.
It is as though they are saying, “Since God must force His will on the depraved (justification), He must also force His will on the already-justified (sanctification).
Systems (especially theologically) must account for far more than 5 little points…which is EXACTLY why history displays so much divergence among the Calvinists.
Honestly, I think we’ve all bought a bit of rhetoric from the hyper folks…I’ve yet to see the logic that convinces me of the 1 point = 5 points in my 30 years of study. Somebody show me and I’ll repent…but (and this is to all my friends), just saying it doesn’t make it so!
The points of the Remonstrance and/or of Arminianism are EXACTLY counter to the points of Dort. Of course, Arminians vary a lot among themselves as well.
Finally, who cares anyway? It is the Word of God as you point out that matters…not a logical system based on a variety of special definitions and dogmatic steps in ‘logic’.
Whew…I sound animated! 🙂
You’re awesome.
God bless and keep at it,
Fred
Dear Fred:
Your very interesting contrast to Calvinims and Arminianism was partuly covered up by the page layout. Please let me have a peak.
Ron
Ron,
Yep…I’m still a little incompetent at WordPress…there is a link at the top and bottom of the page to download the .pdf (it looks pretty!).
Thanks,
Fred
Ron and all,
I tweaked the copy…looks better on my machine…hope it is on yours.
Thanks,
Fred
Hi Fred,
I had intended to get back to you quickly.. .alas I forgot. I will try to do so over the next few days. I had intended to praise you and then I saw your kind words to me.. now I must rebuke you. 🙂 hehehehe j/k
Kev
My sincerest apologies…my kindness is rarely intentional!
Hi Fred,
Thanks for replying with such clarity! Intentional or mere accident your kindness (here and in your books) is always most appreciated.
You wrote; I think 3 of the 5 points flow from one to the other, but the other 2 (unlimited atonement and perseverance-so called-) aren’t the only logical steps that can be rationally made.
Interesting, and I’d agree with that statement.
”Theologically I’d say, “Huh?””
Exactly my question…. But we know we agree on these things.
You wrote something I wish could be required understanding before every discussion of an issue. Most systems are actually ‘logical’—but, as you and I both know, “bad premise, bad conclusion” (even if it does follow / is sequitur).
I recently discussed the definition of “repentance” with a colleague. He was concerned about the fact that English translations of the Scriptures state that God Himself has repented on several occasions, and that it seems to indicate that this is part of His character. He of course had the premise of “turning from and forsaking sin” as the definition. This would surely play with one’s mind if God were to have to “turn from sin.” Of course the English translations have harmonized many concepts and wrapped them all up in the word “repentance” which is most misleading to those who are not equipped to discern the truth. Bad premise = bad result, no matter how good your logic is.
Likewise, recently a friend of mine was debating the meaning of the word “all” in some particular Scripture that seemed to offend his TULIP based belief. He kept coming back to the fact, that I concede, of his good logic. It was his premise that was incorrect, so no matter how good his thinking was his result could not be accurate.
You made the interesting statement;
It is as though they are saying, “Since God must force His will on the depraved (justification), He must also force His will on the already-justified (sanctification).
That is most interesting. It reminds me of Christ’s words “A slave does not dwell in the house forever, but a son dwells in the house forever.” He then notes that if the Son makes you free that you will be free indeed. It would be most strange, and at the very least give the impression of a lie (the appearance of sin) if God were to make slaves of those He claims will be “free indeed.”
You stated I’ve yet to see the logic that convinces me of the 1 point = 5 points in my 30 years of study.
When I looked at the 5 points of TULIP in detail, I found that they were all based on the notion that one must be “good enough” to be saved. Since all sinners are completely evil and unable to even recognize anything good (TD) so God must elect any He wishes to be saved (UE). Since there are people who God has not elected, who are evil and must be punished for their sin God must have only died for the Elect (LA). Since salvation happens by God regenerating the evil heart of a sinner to make him good enough to see his need, and call on God, then the saved one will display this goodness throughout his life.
They may not all be logical extensions of each other, but they are all the logical extension of the idea that Salvation is about goodness, not about Christ’s full payment.
This is the conclusion I came to anyway.
You finished with Finally, who cares anyway? It is the Word of God as you point out that matters…not a logical system based on a variety of special definitions and dogmatic steps in ‘logic’.
So true… however I can’t resist a conversation.
Kev