There are plenty of reasons I am a Calvinist. One reason is the tension Calvinism encourages between various Scriptural doctrines, such as God’s sovereignty and man’s responsibility. Others seek to resolve all tensions within Scripture and generally end up diluting Scriptural doctrines at the expense of humanistic desires to find “neat” solutions.
Calvinism’s focus on the sovereignty of God is well-known, especially as relates to predestination. Yet, while sovereignty is important, the sovereignty of God is not the ultimate determination of whether or not one is Arminian or Calvinist—some Arminians (and their close cousins, open theists) do assert God is sovereign. Nevertheless, the Arminian does not believe in the same way as do Calvinists about predestination.
Arminians, Calvinists, and all believers believe in predestination. The underlying issue of disagreement is the basis of this predestination of God. We Calvinists believe that there is no grounding merit of those predestined by God, nothing intrinsic or foreseen. Accordingly, we call this unconditional election. While we use the word unconditional, we do not mean God has no reasons for choosing some and not others, we mean only that the reason does not lie within those so chosen—that the reason lies with God’s own counsel alone.
On the other hand, the non-Calvinist assumes God’s predestination is grounded in the foreseen faith of those so “elected”. In other words, God looks down the corridors of time and sees who will or will not accept the Good News, then God so ratifies these decisions with his decree of election. The tension between God’s sovereignty and man’s responsibility is seemingly resolved by the non-Calvinist with this approach. What is nuanced by the non-Calvinist is God’s choice, making God’s choice of who is predestined based upon man’s choice.
The Calvinist refuses to deny man’s full responsibility for his choices, nor the unconditional election of God. The tension between these two items is left intact, as we believe this is in agreement with what the Scriptures teach about man’s responsibility and God’s sovereignty. We do not take a rationalistic approach to doctrine when reason is set as a priority over God’s revelation.
The Calvinist sees no reason to solve all tensions within Scripture, including when such solutions are at the expense of the integrity of proper methods of interpretation. Many tensions in Scripture are, on their surface, beyond what we would call making plain sense—e.g., Trinity, creation ex nihilo, hypostatic union. Just like man’s responsibility and God’s sovereignty, none of these tensions create formal logical contradictions. It is here that I think many fail to stop and consider that while us feeble humans may not know how to resolve these tensions, Almighty God does indeed know how. So we Calvinists believe that the existence of these tensions in no way removes the truth content of them.
In the final analysis on this matter, I think that non-Calvinists give more weight to intelligibility and harmony of doctrine than to Scriptural integrity. Calvinists permit Scriptural tension and mysteries to remain to preserve its trustworthiness.
Calvinism’s focus on the sovereignty of God is well-known, especially as relates to predestination. Yet, while sovereignty is important, the sovereignty of God is not the ultimate determination of whether or not one is Arminian or Calvinist—some Arminians (and their close cousins, open theists) do assert God is sovereign. Nevertheless, the Arminian does not believe in the same way as do Calvinists about predestination.
Arminians, Calvinists, and all believers believe in predestination. The underlying issue of disagreement is the basis of this predestination of God. We Calvinists believe that there is no grounding merit of those predestined by God, nothing intrinsic or foreseen. Accordingly, we call this unconditional election. While we use the word unconditional, we do not mean God has no reasons for choosing some and not others, we mean only that the reason does not lie within those so chosen—that the reason lies with God’s own counsel alone.
On the other hand, the non-Calvinist assumes God’s predestination is grounded in the foreseen faith of those so “elected”. In other words, God looks down the corridors of time and sees who will or will not accept the Good News, then God so ratifies these decisions with his decree of election. The tension between God’s sovereignty and man’s responsibility is seemingly resolved by the non-Calvinist with this approach. What is nuanced by the non-Calvinist is God’s choice, making God’s choice of who is predestined based upon man’s choice.
The Calvinist refuses to deny man’s full responsibility for his choices, nor the unconditional election of God. The tension between these two items is left intact, as we believe this is in agreement with what the Scriptures teach about man’s responsibility and God’s sovereignty. We do not take a rationalistic approach to doctrine when reason is set as a priority over God’s revelation.
The Calvinist sees no reason to solve all tensions within Scripture, including when such solutions are at the expense of the integrity of proper methods of interpretation. Many tensions in Scripture are, on their surface, beyond what we would call making plain sense—e.g., Trinity, creation ex nihilo, hypostatic union. Just like man’s responsibility and God’s sovereignty, none of these tensions create formal logical contradictions. It is here that I think many fail to stop and consider that while us feeble humans may not know how to resolve these tensions, Almighty God does indeed know how. So we Calvinists believe that the existence of these tensions in no way removes the truth content of them.
In the final analysis on this matter, I think that non-Calvinists give more weight to intelligibility and harmony of doctrine than to Scriptural integrity. Calvinists permit Scriptural tension and mysteries to remain to preserve its trustworthiness.
