(Last updated 2024/10/16)
Briefly, here are some recent thoughts I've had regarding the Five Points of Calvinism from my Calvinistic perspective. They continue my comments 12 years ago HERE.
Re: Total Depravity (TD).
I'm still convinced of Total Depravity. Even many (not all) historic Arminians acknowledge that their Arminian doctrine of Total Inability is virtually indistinguishable from, or is identical to, the Calvinistic doctrine of Total Depravity. A Calvinist might respond and say, "How can that be? If they really believed that, then they would believe in unconditional election and irresistible grace." No, actually, that doesn't follow. In defense of Arminianism, as a Calvinist myself, the reason why Arminianism can (in principle) affirm the Calvinistic doctrine of TD (even if they call it by another phrase) is because of Arminian Prevenient Grace (PG) [AKA Enabling Grace]. PG doesn't leave men merely indifferent or neutral. It also draws and woos people to respond to God's grace. As Arminian theologian Roger Olson described it, "...it is an operation of the Holy Spirit that frees the sinner’s will from bondage to sin and convicts, calls, illumines and enables the sinner to respond to the gospel call with repentance and faith (conversion)." That's how Total Depravity is overcome in versions of Arminianism.
Re: Unconditional Election (UE).
I'm still convinced of Unconditional Election. I think this is the heart of all theological systems influenced by or follow (in some sense) Augustinianism, whether Thomism, Lutheranism, or the various versions of Calvinism. Lutheranism, with Calvinism also additionally affirms TD in conjunction with UE. Though, Augustinianism and Thomism don't quite rise to the level of affirming the Calvinistic fullness of Total Depravity despite affirming and being consistent with the doctrines and Canons of the Council of Orange II (AD 529).
Re: Limited Atonement (LA).
I was brought up in Roman Catholicism and to some extent Seventh Day Adventism. I got serious in my Christian life around 1988. I became convinced of Evangelicalism around 1995 and become a convinced Calvinist around the end of 1997 or beginning of 1998. From around 1999 to 2009 was the time when I was most convinced of Limited Atonement with a degree of confidence at around 85-90%. But I was never 100% convinced of LA. Not even after reading John Owen's tome "The Death of Death in the Death of Christ" which is considered by Calvinists to be the greatest articulation and defense of LA. So much so, that many refer to it as Owenian Limited Atonement (OLA) when discussing the mainline Calvinistic understanding of atonement.
For the past few years I've no longer been dogmatic on LA. For me, it's one option among others. In OLA BOTH the Extent and Intent of the atonement are particular. While in most non-Calvinistic theologies the atonement is universal or general in both Extent and Intent. However, nowadays, I'm open to mediating positions. For example, the view that some 4 point Calvinists hold whereby the Extent is universal or general, while the Intent is particular. This compromise splits the difference and can account for the prooftexts used by both sides of the debate. Many Calvinists will argue that a denial of OLA breaks the harmony between the persons of the Trinity. They say that on Calvinism that affirms OLA there is agreement between the persons of the Trinity in that all those whom the Father elects to salvation are the same ones (and only the ones) Christ atones for and the same persons (and only those persons) whom the Holy Spirit effectually calls, regenerates, sanctifies and glorifies.
But that assumes that the only intent of God in the atonement is to saved the elect through Christ's death. An argument that some Calvinists [e.g. Elisha Coles] argue against Universal Atonement (UA) or General Atonement (GA) is that on views like Arminianism Christ dies for people whom God knows will not be saved, and therefore instead of supporting the claim by Arminian-like views that Universal Atonement magnifies the grace of God, instead it does the opposite. How? Because if God were really gracious, then Christ would not haved died for those who God knew wouldn't believe because now that Christ died for them they will be THAT MUCH MORE condemned because they rejected the UA/GA Christ made for them. I don't think this criticism really works against Arminian-like views because, logically speaking, on Arminian-like views, people could only reject the offer of salvation and God's grace only because such offers are based on Christ's atonement. Meaning, the atonement logically precedes any possible offer of salvation. So it makes no sense for Calvinists like Coles to say that it would have been more gracious for God not to have given Christ to die for those who God knew would not believe [ostensibly in order to lessen or minimize their culpability]. Because if Christ didn't die for them, then the no Gospel could be offered the non-elect. Though, this criticism has some purchase when it comes to those who never hear the Gospel message or who died before Christ was crucified.
Why did I mention all that? Because as I said in the beginning of the last paragraph OLA "assumes that the only intent of God in the atonement is to saved the elect through Christ's death." But what if, even under Calvinism another intent of God in the atonement is to both magnify God's grace in offering potential salvation for all [including the non-elect] AND to increase the condemnation of those who reject the Gospel? My fellow Calvinists are fond of saying that part of the purpose of election is to manifest more (or all) of God's attributes. Not only God's attribute of mercy, but also God's sovereignty and God's holy wrath against sin. Well, then using that line of argument, even a Calvinist could therefore argue that Limited Atonement limits the manifestation of God's attribute of holy wrath in that it minimizes the culpability of those who reject the Gospel. In addition to that, LA could also limits the manifestation of God's grace in that it minimizes the graciousness of the offer of Christ's atonement.
There are plenty of resources from 4 point Calvinists who argue against Limited Atonement.
For example, this debate:
Debate: "Did Christ Die For The Sins of The Elect Alone?" Austin C. Brown vs. Jon Bowlin
https://www.youtube.com/live/rwkyf8YnZnc?si=yTrZEYbUUufkjaq3
This website:
Calvin and Calvinism
http://calvinandcalvinism.com/
Re: Irresistible/Invincible Grace (IG).
It seems clear to me that if Unconditional Election is true, then it has to be the case that God's grace toward the elect must be irresistible. Otherwise God couldn't guarantee the salvation of all the elect. However, I've come to realize that it doesn't follow from that that all of God's redemptive grace must be irresistible. In fact, we have Biblical passages that suggest that God's grace can be successfully rejected. For example:
Acts 7:51 "You stiff-necked people, uncircumcised in heart and ears, you always RESIST THE HOLY SPIRIT. As your fathers did, so do you.
Heb. 6: 4 For it is impossible, in the case of those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, and have shared in the Holy Spirit,
5 and have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the age to come,
6 and then have fallen away, to restore them again to repentance, since they are crucifying once again the Son of God to their own harm and holding him up to contempt.
2 Cor. 6:1 Working together with him, then, we appeal to you not to receive the grace of God in vain.
Heb. 10:29 How much worse punishment, do you think, will be deserved by the one who has spurned the Son of God, and has profaned the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and has outraged the Spirit of grace?
Jude 1:4 For certain people have crept in unnoticed who long ago were designated for this condemnation, ungodly people, who pervert the grace of our God into sensuality and deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ.
Therefore it seems me that in addition to God's irresistible grace, God has [or could have] a resistible grace either along side it [a kind of Calvinistic Prevenient Grace that can be resisted working in conjunction with Calvinistic Irresistible Grace] OR that is due to the same grace that is applied to the elect but at a lower intensity or degree to the non-elect such that it can be and will be resisted. Whereas for the elect, that same grace is intensified so as to guarantee a positive response.
One might again raise the objection that this proposed possibility of a Calvinistic resistible grace distinct from a Calvinistic irresistible grace breaks the harmony of the intentions and work of the persons of the Trinity. But I would again respond that maybe additional intentions of the persons of the Trinity might include the purposes of 1. magnifying the greatness of God's grace, 2. to provide a manifestation and exercise of grace that leaves the non-elect without excuse and 3. allowing all the more the manifestation of God's holy wrath against those who sin against greater light and grace.
My conclusion then is that God's grace toward the elect is either always or eventually irresistible, but that that tells us nothing about God's non-existent OR existent gracious overtures toward the non-elect. Maybe there are such overtures by the Holy Spirit toward the non-elect, but that in keeping with unconditional election, irresistible grace is never applied to the non-elect to the point of saving them in the end. Why do I say "to the end"? Because theoretically and logically, irresistible grace could be applied to the non-elect for their temporary salvation. Which leads me to the next point of Calvinism. The Perseverance of the Saints.
Re: The Perseverance of the Saints (PotS).
I've already written about my unique thoughts on this topic HERE. The following is should be added to that discussion (though it slightly rehashes some of what I've already said in that blogpost).
It doesn't follow from Unconditional Election that the Perseverance of the Saints is true. This is why even some theologies that affirm UE deny the Perseverance of the SAINTS but rather affirm the Perseverance of the ELECT (PotE). For example, the following affirm UE and PotE: Augustinianism, Thomism, Lutheranism.
What's the difference between the PotS and PotE? In the Perseverance of the SAINTS, the saints and the elect are the same exact coterminous group. There's a one to one correlation between all the individual saints and all the individual elect. Whereas in the Perseverance of the ELECT, the elect are a subset of the saints. That's because on that view not everyone who is in a gracious state is additionally given the gift(s) of perseverance. There can be temporary regenerate saints on this view. Saints whom God doesn't intent to give the gift of perseverance. Which seems problematic for reasons I've later give below.
We have to ask the question, "Are ONLY the elect regenerated and placed in a salvific state?" If not, then the regenerated non-elect will eventually fall away permanently who were regenerated by either a Prevenient Grace [which doesn't deny the existence of an "Irresistible Grace" in some sense, because most proponents of PotE deny the Calvinistic understanding of IG] or by Irresistible Grace itself. If the former, that poses an interesting situation. Because we would then have instances of people entering a regenerate state because they responded to a grace [via PG] that set the will free from bondage to sin and so afforded the opportunity for the persons to be saved temporarily. Their temporary salvific state was determinatively due to man's will rather than God's [contra John 1:13; Rom. 9:16; James 1:18; 2 Tim. 1:9; passim]. If they [these hypothetical non-elect] were regenerated by the latter, by Irresistible Grace, then we have an interesting situation here too. As will eventually be seen below.
Another question we have to ask is, "Can the elect temporarily lose regeneration and/or justification?" Augustinians and Thomists, Molinists and Lutherans affirm they can. It's interesting that Lutherans do too despite affirming sola fide [i.e. justification through faith alone]. See Jordan Cooper's videos on YouTube where he defends this Lutheran view. Assuming that the elect can temporarily lose regeneration and/or justification, then they must eventually regain it again [maybe multiple times] under Augustinianism, Thomism, Molinism, Lutheranism et al.
What is my conclusion regarding the doctrine of the PotS? I'm open to PotE, but I strongly lean [90%] toward the Perseverance of the SAINTS because the Perseverance of the ELECT entails a denial of God's faithfulness, and the implication that God didn't really love those who were temporarily saved. And so seems to undermine the fullness of the genuine love of God. How so? It seems to make God an "Indian Giver." This is not meant to be an ethnic slur. My point is that it would involve God taking back what He gave, despite the statement in Rom. 11:29 that "For the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable." It also denies God's faithfulness of the promise in Rom. 8:32 that "He who did not spare his own Son but gave him up for us all, how will he not also with him graciously give us all things?" If God really loves all the regenerate, then in FULLNESS OF LOVE He will give all the regenerate the gift [or continuing gifts] of perseverance. How then can anyone truly regenerate person fall away? This is another reason to doubt baptismal regeneration. Because on that view the VAST MAJORITY of those baptismally regenerated don't persevere and arrive in heaven. Yet, the Bible refers to God's redemptive covenantal grace, mercy and love as everlasting such that God will never leave or forsake those blessed with them.
Isa. 54:8 In overflowing anger for a moment I hid my face from you, but with everlasting love I will have compassion on you," says the LORD, your Redeemer.
Jer. 31:3 the LORD appeared to him from far away. I have loved you with an everlasting love; therefore I have continued my faithfulness to you.
Besides, there are plenty of verses that suggest that justification and regeneration are irrevocable. And that God will make sure those in redemptive covenant with Him will persevere.
For example:
1 John 3:9 No one born of God makes a practice of sinning, FOR GOD'S SEED ABIDES IN HIM, AND HE CANNOT KEEP ON SINNING BECAUSE HE HAS BEEN BORN OF GOD.
Jer. 32:40 I will make with them an everlasting covenant, that I will not turn away from doing good to them. And I will put the fear of me in their hearts, THAT THEY MAY NOT TURN FROM ME.
Ezek. 36:26 And I will give you a new heart, and a new spirit I will put within you. And I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh.
27 And I will put my Spirit within you, AND CAUSE YOU TO WALK IN MY STATUTES and be careful to obey my rules.
1 John 2:19 They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us. But they went out, that it might become plain that they all are not of us.
Heb. 13:5 Keep your life free from love of money, and be content with what you have, for he has said, "I WILL NEVER LEAVE YOU NOR FORSAKE YOU."
6 So we can confidently say, "The Lord is my helper; I will not fear; what can man do to me?"
Many more passages could be adduced as evidence. But that should suffice. Notice 1 John 3:9 clearly implies that regeneration is irrevocable and irreversible.
