Skip to main content
MAIN SECTION

SELECTED ARTICLE

< All Topics
Print

Calvinism – Introduction


Not critical for who?

Estimated Time To Read Article

40–60 minutes

Article Title: Calvinism Introduction

No Debate: God Elects & Predestines

 

The Bible leaves no ambiguity on the matter: God elects and God predestines. The real questions are not whether He does so, but whom He elects and for what purposes He predestines them. Christians often approach these questions through the long‑standing debate between the two well‑known poles of Calvinism and Arminianism. These systems have shaped much of Protestant thought, but to link election and predestination exclusively to them is to limit the discussion to their assumptions and interpretations rather than the full biblical and historical landscape.

In reality, the Christian tradition contains multiple, distinct models of election — each shaped by different understandings of God’s sovereignty, human freedom, grace, and the nature of salvation. Calvinism and Arminianism are influential, but they are far from the only voices in the conversation.

Click here to open or close: Election & Predestination Theological Families

Figure / MovementNotes
Open TheistsFuture free acts not fixed; strong libertarian freedom
Justin MartyrEarly Christian emphasis on moral freedom
IrenaeusFree will central to theodicy
Clement of AlexandriaStrong synergy; moral freedom
OrigenFree will + universal restoration
PelagiusMaximal free will; grace = external help
AugustineUnconditional election; efficacious grace
Eastern Orthodox TraditionSynergism; anti‑deterministic anthropology
Prosper of AquitaineStrong Augustinian predestination
BoethiusTimeless knowledge avoids determinism
GottschalkDouble predestination
AquinasPredestination affirmed; no double predestination
ScotusDivine will central; moderate determinism
OckhamDivine freedom emphasized; soft determinism
LutherBondage of the will
ZwingliStrong determinism; divine causality
MelanchthonEarly Lutheran synergy
CalvinDouble predestination (in some formulations)
ArminiusConditional election; resistible grace
MolinaMiddle knowledge; libertarian freedom preserved
SuarezJesuit scholastic; mitigated libertarianism
RemonstrantsAnti‑Calvinist response; conditional election
Dort / TULIPHardest form of Reformed determinism
EdwardsCompatibilist determinism; strong sovereignty
WesleyArminian with strong prevenient grace
Hyper‑Calvinists
Neo‑CalvinistsKuyperian sovereignty emphasis
BarthChristocentric election; avoids determinism
Karl RahnerTranscendental freedom; grace‑cooperation
PlantingaFree‑will defense; libertarian freedom
Process TheologiansRadical free‑will emphasis; God does not determine future events

Fact Checking Calvinist Early Church Claims

Calvinists claim that the concept of Free Will was never taught or supported by the Pre-Augustine Fathers of the early Church. It is important to understand that neither I, nor (I assume) Calvinists suggest that the writings of the Early Church Fathers should ever be thought of as infallible nor be given the same weight as the writings of the Apostles that make up our Gospel. However, just as we can make use of historical writings like that of Josephus and Philo (and other historical references), to gain understanding of the customs and beliefs of earlier cultures we can do the same thing here by investigating the beliefs and understandings of the Early Church Fathers. After all, and in consideration of the fact that some of the early Church Fathers actually walked with and were disciples of the Apostles we can assume that any general consensus between such Early (Pre-Augustine) Church Fathers as helpful to our own understanding and teachings today. Thus I believed it only fair to fact check the Calvinist claims in this regard. Now although there was a small group of Early (Post-Augustine) Church Fathers who would later support Augustine, I did not find any Early (Pre-Augustine) Church Father who did not teach Free Will. Thus I provide the following statements made by some of the most influential and renowned Early (Pre-Augustine) Church Fathers as evidence that the Calvinist claim is proven to be False:

Justin Martyr (100-165)

  • “God wishing men and angels to follow His Will, resolved to create them free to do righteousness. But if the Word of God foretells that some angels and men shall certainly be punished, it did so because it foreknew that they would be unchangeably (wicked) but not because God created them so. So, if they repent, all who wish for it can obtain mercy from God” (Dialogue, CXLI)
  • “In the beginning, he made the human race with the power of thought and of choosing the truth and doing right, so that all men are without excuse before God” (c 160, E) 1.172
  • “Let some suppose, from what has been said by us, that we say that whatever occurs happens by a fatal necessity, because it is foretold as known beforehand, this too we explained. We have learned from the prophets and we hold it to be true, that punishments, chastisements, and good rewards, are rendered according to the Merit of each man’s actions. Now if this is not so but all things happen by fate, then neither is anything at all in our own power. For if it is predetermined that this man will be good in this other man will be evil neither is the first one meritorious nor the later man to be blamed. And again unless the human race has the power of avoiding evil and choosing good by free choice they are not accountable for their actions”. (c 160 E) 1.777.
  • “Neither do we maintain that it is by Fate that men do what they do, or suffer what they suffer. Rather we maintain that each man acts rightly or sins by his free choice … Since God in the beginning made the race of angels and men with free will, they will justly suffer in Eternal fire the punishment of whatever sins they have committed”.  (c 160 E) 1.190
  • “It was God’s desire for both angels and men, who were endowed with free will … that if they choose the things acceptable to him he would keep them free from death and from punishment. However, if they did Evil he would punish each as he sees fit”. (c 160 E) 1.243
  • “He created both angels and Men free to do that which is righteous. And he appointed. Of time during which he knew it would be good for them to have the exercise of free will”. (c 160 E) 1.250
  • “I have proved and what has been said that those who were foreknown to be unrighteous whether men or angels are not made Wicked by God’s fault rather each man is what he will appear to be through his own fault”. (c 160 E) 1.269

Irenaeus (130-200)

  • “This expression ‘How often would I have gathered thy children together, and thou wouldst not’ set forth the ancient law of human liberty, because God made man a free [agent] from the beginning, possessing his own soul to obey the behest of God voluntarily, and not by compulsion of God. For there is no coercion with God, but good will [toward us] is present in Him continually. And therefore, does He give good council to all. And in man as well as angels, He has placed power of choice (for angels are rational beings), so that those who had yielded obedience might justly posses what is good, given indeed by God but preserved by themselves… If then were it not in our power to do or not to do these things, what reason had the Apostle and much more the Lord Himself, to give us council to do some things and to abstain from others” But because man is possessed of free will from the beginning, and God is possessed of free will in whose likeness man was created, advice is always given to him to keep fast the good, which thing is done by means of obedience to God”. (Against Heresies XXXVII)

Athenagoras of Athens (Second Century)

  • “Just as men have freedom of choice as to both virtue and vice (for you would not either honor the good or punish the bad; unless vice and virtue were in their own power and some are diligent in the matters entrusted to them, and others faithless), so is it among the angels”. (Embassy for Christians XXIV)

Theophilus of Antioch (Second Century)

  • “God made man free, and with power over himself … now God vouchsafes to him as a gift through His own philanthropy and pity, when men obey Him. For as man, disobeying, drew death on himself; so obeying the will of God, he who desires is able to procure for himself life everlasting”. (To Autolycus XXVII)

Tatian of Syria (Late Second Century)

  • “Live to God, and by apprehending Him lay aside your old nature. We were not created to die, but we die by our own fault. Our free will has destroyed us; we who were free become slaves; we have been sold through sin. Nothing evil has been created by God; we ourselves have manifested wickedness; but we, who have manifested it, are able again to reject it”. (Address XI)

Bardaisan of Syria (c 154-222)

  • “How is that God did not so make us that we should not sin and incur condemnation? If man had been made so, he would not have belonged to himself but would have been the instrument of him that moved him … And how, in that case, would man differ from a harp, on which another plays; or from a ship, which another guides; where the praise and the blame reside in the hand of the performer or the steersman … they being only instruments made for the use of him in whom is the skill? But God in His benignity, chose not so to make man; but by freedom He exalted him above many of His creatures”. (From historical fragments)

Clement of Alexandria (c 150-215)

  • “We who have heard by the Scriptures that self-determining choice and refusal have been given by the Lord to men, rest in the infallible criterion of faith, manifesting a willful Spirit, since we have chosen life and believe God through His voice?” (Stromata 2.4)
  • “Nothing is without the will of the Lord of the universe. It remains to say that such things happen without prevention of God; for this alone saves both the providence and the goodness of God. We must therefore think that He activity produces afflictions (far be it that we should think this!); but we must be persuaded that He does not prevent those that cause them but overrules for good the crimes of His enemies”. (Stromata 4.12)

Tertullian (155 – 225)

I must note that Tertullian is one of my favorites.

  • “I find then that man was by God constituted free, master of his own will and power, indicating the presence of God’s image and likeness in him by nothing so well as by this constitution of his nature. …You will find that when He sets before man good and evil, life and death, that the entire course of discipline is arranged in percepts by God’s calling men from sin, and threatening and exhorting them; and this on no other ground that man is free, with a will either for obedience or resistance … Both goodness and purpose of God are discovered in the gift to man of freedom in his will”. (Against Marcion 2.5)

Novation of Rome (c 200-258)

  • “He also placed man at the head of the world man too made in the image of God, to whom He imparted mind, and reason, and foresight that he might imitate God; and although the first elements of his body were earthly yet the substance was inspired by Heavenly and divine breathing, and when He had given him all the things for His service, He willed that he alone would be free and lest again an unbounded Freedom should fall into Peril. He laid down a command in which man was taught that there was no evil in the fruit of the tree; but he was forewarned that evil would arise if perchance he should exercise his Free Will in the contempt of the law that was given” (On the Trinity Chapter 1)

Origen (c 185-254)

  • “Now it ought to be known that the holy apostles, in preaching the faith of Christ, delivered themselves with the utmost clearness on certain points which they believed to be necessary to everyone … This also is clearly defined in the teaching of the Church that every rational soul is possessed of free will and volition”. (De Principiis, preface)
  • “There are indeed innumerable passages in the Scriptures which establish with exceeding clearness the existence of freedom of will”. (De Principiis, 3.1)

Methodius (c 260-311)

  • “Those who decide that man is not possessed of free will and affirm that he is governed by the unavoidable necessities of fate … are guilty of impiety toward God Himself, making Him out to be the cause and author of human evils”. (The Banquet of the Ten Virgins XVI)
  • “I say that man was made with free will, not as if there were already existing some evil, which he had the power of choosing if he wished … but that the power of obeying and disobeying God is the only cause”. (Concerning Free Will)

Archhellaus (c 277)

  • “All creatures that God made, He made very good, and He gave to every individual the sense of free will in accordance with which standard He also instituted the law of judgment. To sin is ours, and that we sin not is God’s gift, as our will is constituted to choose either to sin or not to sin”. (The Disputation with Manes)

Arnobius of Sicca (c 253-327)

  • “Does He not free all alike who He invites all alike? Or does He thrust back or repel any one from the kindness of the Supreme who gives to all alike the power of coming to Him? To all, He says the fountain of life is opem, and no one is hindered or kept back from drinking …”. (Against the Heathen 64.1 Reply)
  • “Nay, my opponent says, If God is powerful, merciful, willing to save us, let Him change our dispositions, and compel us to trust in His promises. This then is violence, not kindness nor the bounty of the Supreme God but a childish and vain strife in seeking to get the mastery; For what is so unjust as to force men who are reluctant and unworthy to reverse their inclinations; to impress forcibly on their minds what they are unwilling to receive, and shrink from …”. (Against the Heathen, 65)

Cyril of Jersulalem (c 312-386)

  • “Know also that thou hast a soul self-governed, the noblest work of God, made after the image of its creator, immortal because of God that gives it immortality, a living being, rational, imperishable, because of Him that bestowed these gifts; having free power to do what it willeth”. (Lecture, IV 18)
  • “There is not a class of souls sinning by nature and a class of souls practicing righteousness by nature; but both act from choice, the substance of their souls being of one kind only and alike in all”. (Lecture, IV 20)
  • “The soul is self governed; and though the Devil can suggest, he has no power to compel against the will. He pictures to thee the thoughts of fornication; if thou wilt, thou rejectist. For if thou wert a fornicator of necessity, then for what cause did God prepare Hell? Of thou wert a doer of righteousness by nature and not by will, wherefore did God prepare crowns of ineffable glory? The sheep is gentle, but never was it crowned for its gentleness; since it its gentle quality belongs to it not from choice but by nature”. (Lecture, IV 21)

Gregory of Nyssa (c 335-395)

  • “Being in the image and the likeness… of the power which rules all things, man kept also in the matter of a free will this likeness to him whose will is over all”. (On Virginity, 368 Chapter XII)

Jerome (c 347-420)

  • “It is in vain that you misrepresent me and try to convince the ignorant that I condemned free will. Let him who condemns it be himself condemned. We have been created, endowed with free will still it is not this which distinguishes us from the brutes. For human Free Will as I said depends upon the help of God and needs His aid moment by moment a thing which you and yours do not choose to admit. Your position is that once man has free will he no longer needs to help of God. It is true that freedom of the free will brings with it freedom of decision. Still man does not act immediately on his free will but requires God’s aid who himself needs no aid”. (letters 133)
  • “But when we are concerned with Grace and mercy, Free Will is in part void in part I say for so much depends upon it, that we wish and desire and give a scent to the course we choose. But it depends on God whether we have the power and his strength and with his help to perform what we desire and to bring to effect our toil and effort”. (Against the Pelagians, Book 111, 10)
  • “It is ours to begin, God’s to finish”. (Against the Pelagians, 3.1)

John Chrysostom (347 – 407)

  • “God having placed good and evil in our power, has given us full freedom of choice; He does not keep back the unwilling, but embraces the willing”. (Homilies on Genesis 19.1)
  • “All is in God’s power but so that our free will is not lost … It depends therefore on us and on Him. We must first choose the good, and then He adds what belongs to Him. He does not precede our willing, that our free will may not suffer. But when we have chosen, then He affords us much help … It is ours to choose before hand and to will, but God’s to perfect and bring to the end”. (On Hebrews Homily 12)

Augustine (354-430)

  • Early Augustine
  • “Free will naturally assigned by the Creator to our original soul, is such a neutral power, as can either inclined toward faith, or turn toward unbelief”. (On the Spirit and the Letter 58)
  • “Sin is so much of voluntary evil that is not sin at all unless it is voluntary”. (Of the religion, 14)
  • “Either then will is itself the first cause of sin, or the first cause is with out sin”. (On Free Will, 3.49)
  • “Sin is indeed nowhere but, in the will, since this consideration also would have helped me, that Justice holds guilty those sinning by evil will alone, although they may have been unable to accomplish what they willed… Whoever has done anything Evil by means of one unconscious or unable to resist the latter can by no means be justly condemned … Everyone also who does a thing unwillingly is compelled, and everyone who is compelled, if he does a thing, does it only unwillingly, it follows that he that is willing is free from compulsion, even if anyone thinks himself compelled”. (Two Souls Against the Manichaeans, 10 12)
  • “Our conclusion is that our Wills have power to do all that God wanted them to do and foresaw they could do. Their power, such as it is, is a real power. What they are to do they themselves will most certainly do, because God foresaw both that they could do it and they would do it and his knowledge cannot be mistaken … The conclusion is that we are by no means under compulsion to abandoned free choice in favor of divine knowledge, nor need we deny, God forbid! God knows the future, as a condition for holding free choice”. (City of God, 5.9)

Late Augustine

 

Anselm (1033-1109)

  • “No One desserts up brightness except by willing to Desert it. If against Ones Will means unwillingly then no one deserts up rightness against his will… but a man cannot will against his will because he cannot will unwillingly to will. For everyone who wills, Wills willingly” (Truth Freedom and Evil, 130)
  • “Although they (Adam and Eve) yield themselves to sin, they could not abolish in themselves their Natural Freedom of choice. However, they could so affect their state that they were not able to use that freedom except by a different Grace from that which they had before their fall”. (Truth Freedom and Evil, 125)
  • “We are not to say that they Adam and Eve had freedom for the purpose of receiving, from a giver, the uprightness which they didn’t have, because we have to believe that they were created with upright wills, Although we must not deny that they had freedom for receiving this same uprightness again, should they once dessert it and where it returned to them by the one who originally gave it. We often see an Evidence of this in men who are LED back to Justice from Injustice by Heavenly grace”. (Truth, Freedom, and Evil, 126)
  • “don’t you see it follows from these considerations that no temptation can conquer and upright will? Or if Temptation can conquer the will, it has the power to conquer it, and conquers the will by its own power. But Temptation cannot do this because the will cannot be overcome only by its own power”. (Truth, Freedom, and Evil, 132)
  • “Now I wonder whether even God could remove uprightness from a man’s will. Could he? I’ll show you that he cannot. For although he can reduce everything which he has made from nothing back to nothing. He does not have the power to separate uprightness from a will that has it”. (Truth, Freedom, and Evil, 136) Although an assumption, I can only imagine that the context of what Anslem was trying to say is that because God does not tempt people to do evil, for it still took Satan to do that, God likewise does not tempt people to do righteousness, instead just as before Adam and Eve’s Fall, God commands obedience and uprightness.

Thomas Aquinas (1224-1274)

  • “The cause of sin is the wills not holding to the rule of reason and divine law. Evil does not arise before the will applies itself to doing something”. (Theological Texts 132)
  • “Necessity comes from the agent when the latter so coerces someone that he cannot do the contrary. We refer to this as necessity by coercion. Such necessity by coercion is contrary to the will. For we consider violent whatever is contrary to a things inclination. But the wills own motion is an inclination towards something, so that something is voluntary when it follows the inclination of nature. Just as something cannot possibly be violent and natural simultaneously, so something cannot be absolutely coerced or violent and simultaneously voluntary “. (An Aquinas Reader 291-292)
  • “Thus, of necessity man Will’s happiness, and it is impossible for him to well not to be happy or to be unhappy. But since choice does not deal with the end but with the means to the end, as previously discussed [Summa Theologica, I-II, 13, 3], it does not deal with the perfect good or happiness but with other particular goods. Consequently, man does not choose necessarily but freely”. (An Aquinas Reader 293)
  • “Some have proposed that man’s will is moved necessarily to making some choice, although they do not hold that the will is coerced. For not every necessity from an external principle violent motion is course of but only that which originates from without, where certain natural movements are discovered to be necessary but not Chorus of. For the course of his opposed to the Natural just as it is also opposed to voluntary emotion, because the latter comes from internal principle, while violent motion comes from an external one. This opinion of Latin airvists is therefore heretical because it destroys Merit and demerit and human actions. For why should there be any Merit or demerit for actions one cannot avoid doing? It is moreover be included among the excluded opinions of philosophers for if there is no freedom in us but we are moved of necessity to will, then deliberate choice, encouragement, precept, punishment, praise, and blame are removed, and these are the very problems that moral philosophy considers, not only is this contrary to the faith but it undermines all the principles of moral philosophy” (An Aquinas Reader 294-295)
  • “Sin cannot destroy man’s rationality altogether for then he would no longer be capable of sin”. (Philosophical Texts 179)
  • “To be free is not to be obliged to one’s determinate object”. (Philosophical Texts 259)
  • “Man has free choice otherwise councils exhortations precepts prohibitions rewards and punishments would all be pointless” (Philosophical Texts 261-262)
  • “Man however can act from judgment and adaptation in the reason a free judgment that leaves intact the power of being able to decide otherwise” (Philosophical Texts”
  • “Sin is caused by the Free Will according as it turns away from God hence it does not follow the God is the cause of sin although he is the cause of free will” (On Evil, 106)
  • “It must be noted that the movement of the first mover is not uniformly received in all movable things, but in each according to its own mode… for when a thing is properly disposed to receive the movement of the first mover a perfect action in accord with the intention of the first mover follows; but if a thing is not properly disposed and suited to receive the motion of the first mover an imperfect action follows. And then whatever action is present is referred to as the first mover as the cause, but whatever defect is present is not referred to the Mover as the cause, since such a defect in the action results from the fact that the agent departs from the order of the first mover… And for this reason we maintain that the action pertaining to sin is from God, but the sin is not from God” (On Evil, 110)
  • “The deformity of sin in no way falls under the Divine will but results from this that the Free Will departs or deviates from the order of the Divine will” (On Evil, 111)
  • “Similarly when something moves itself, it’s not precluded that it was moved by another from whom it has this variability by which it moves itself, and therefore it is not contrary to Liberty that God is the cause of the act of free will, … Sin wounded man in his natural Powers so far as concerns his capacity for gratuitous Goods but not in such a way that it takes away anything of the essence of his nature; and so it does not follow that the demons intellect erred except about gratuitous matters” (On Evil, 496)

 

The longevity of the Calvinism–Arminianism debate does not mean the issue is unresolvable. The debate over God’s existence has lasted even longer, yet Christians rightly believe that question is resolvable for those who genuinely seek the truth. In the same way, the fact that believers have wrestled with election for centuries does not imply that Scripture is silent or that clarity is impossible.

There is a significant difference between saying, “I have not yet found the answer,” and saying, “Because I have not found the answer, no answer exists.” The former is honest; the latter is self‑defeating. A person may search their entire life and still not reach a conclusion — but that is no reason to stop searching, nor to assume the truth is unattainable. Proverbs 2:4-5, Proverbs 25:2.

Often, when we lock ourselves into a debate framed by two opposing systems, we have a tendency to overlook a third possibility: that both interpretations may be incomplete or completely wrong. The fact that neither Calvinism nor Arminianism has been able to harmonize its interpretation with the whole of Scripture without contradiction — and the fact that Calvinism struggles to align fully with the revealed character of God — suggests that the truth may lie beyond the boundaries of either framework. In other words, we may be looking for all the right answers, in all the wrong places.

What we believe and what we teach matters, it has consequences and so the topic of Election & Predestination matters greatly, as I hope to demonstrate! 

In this series of articles (this study), I am going to attempt to achieve multiple objectives through a single approach. Therefore, I hope to illuminate and motivate guarding ourselves from the dangers the Church is currently facing with Calvinism. This is not to criticize individuals who hold Calvinist or Reformed convictions, nor to question Christianity, their sincerity, devotion, or commitment to Scripture. Rather, it is to examine the doctrines themselves and to consider the theological implications that flow from them. Since ideas have consequences, and since doctrines concerning salvation inevitably shape one’s understanding of God, humanity, the gospel, and Christian living, these teachings deserve to be evaluated with diligence and care.

As this study progresses, it will be argued that certain conclusions drawn from the Calvinist and Reformed understanding of election and predestination carry dangerous implications that are often overlooked or insufficiently examined. For that reason, the subject is not merely an academic exercise but a matter of profound theological significance, worthy of the earnest attention of every student of Scripture.

I believe that pointing out an issue carries with it the responsibility to pursue its solution. With that in mind, my aim in this study is to offer—for your consideration—an interpretation of election and predestination that can withstand Scriptural scrutiny because it allows Scripture to interpret Scripture. My hope is that you will find this interpretation to be one that fits contextually, progressively, and coherently throughout the whole of the biblical narrative, without contradiction, and that it aligns equally—again without contradiction—with the harmonious and perfect nature of God, both in what He is and who He is.

Doctrines ultimately come from one of two places — from Scripture or from man — and in either case, a doctrine should be able to be explained, tested, and traced back to Scripture. If it cannot be demonstrated from the Word of God, then it has no binding authority on the believer. 

I will begin by identifying the problems and explaining why they matter. I will then examine the inconsistencies, incoherencies, and errors within Calvinism while offering alternative interpretations that are coherently grounded in Scripture. I will not “hammer square pegs into round holes” nor will I ask you to accept contradictions disguised as “mysteries,”. Instead, I will endeavor to present an approach that can be demonstrated and tested to fit biblical text contextually, progressively intact, without contradiction throughout all Scripture.


The Problem With Ignoring Calvinism

For those unfamiliar with the doctrines of election and predestination, they represent one of the most contentious yet significant theological debates in church history. These doctrines have shaped Christian perspectives on salvation, the gospel, God’s grace, His sovereignty, human responsibility, and divine justice. And despite the claim that this subject is “non‑essential” or “non‑salvation‑critical,” its implications are profound. According to numerous testimonies, misunderstandings or rigid formulations of these doctrines have even influenced some unbelievers to reject the Christian faith altogether.

Although election and predestination are commonly associated with the 16th‑century Reformers—Martin Luther, John Calvin, and Jacobus Arminius—their theological roots and controversies reach much further back. The debate extends to the early centuries of the church, involving figures such as Ignatius of Antioch, Augustine of Hippo, Gottschalk, and Thomas Aquinas.

The Modern Resurgence

Today, we are witnessing an unprecedented resurgence of 16th‑century Calvinist and Reformed theology. Over the past century—and especially in recent decades—its influence has grown rapidly across North American Protestant churches and seminaries. This expansion is due in part to the efforts of prominent and highly mobilized leaders and advocates. As a result, many Protestant seminaries and educational institutions now identify as Calvinist and embrace the rallying cry “ecclesia reformata, semper reformanda”—“the church reformed, always reforming.”

Ironically, the original intent of this phrase was not to promote the spread of a particular theological system, but to encourage ongoing self‑examination, open discourse, and doctrinal accountability. It was meant to guard the Protestant churches from becoming the very thing they had separated from.

Why the Subject Cannot Be Avoided

Some Christians prefer to avoid the topic, perceiving it as “too complicated,” “too divisive,” or simply an “unresolvable” debate between Calvinism and Arminianism. However, because these doctrines address matters central to the gospel—who is saved, why they are saved, and how God’s eternal purposes relate to humanity—they deserve careful and thoughtful examination.

Such examination requires more than familiarity with theological vocabulary. Terms like election, predestination, calling, grace, faith, regeneration, and foreknowledge often carry meanings shaped by the theological systems in which they are defined. This makes the study of Calvinism and Reformed Traditionalism challenging. Many Christians—regardless of their theological camp—are often surprised to discover what these terms actually mean within the system and what they imply.

Therefore, a proper evaluation of these doctrines requires a willingness to look beyond labels, traditions, and assumptions, and to examine both their definitions and their biblical foundations.

Why This Matters

Calvinism is not a problem if it accurately conveys the truth of God’s Word. Any doctrine that faithfully reflects Scripture deserves to be embraced. However, given Calvinism’s significant influence and its rapid spread throughout North American Protestant churches and seminaries, the implications are serious if the system is left unexamined and is ultimately found to be in error. When a doctrine shapes preaching, discipleship, and the spiritual formation of entire generations, the potential dangers are profound if that doctrine does not, in fact, align with Scripture.


About the Term “TULIP”

To simplify discussion, I may at times use the acronym TULIP in place of “Calvinism and Reformed Traditionalism.” TULIP summarizes the five principal doctrines of Calvinism:

  • Total Depravity 
  • Unconditional Election 
  • Limited Atonement 
  • Irresistible Grace 
  • Perseverance of the Saints

Although these doctrines are associated with John Calvin, their determinist roots trace back to Augustine, whose teachings on the depravity of the human will were directed against forms of synergism and semi‑Pelagianism.

Reformation churches do not typically use the acronym TULIP, but they affirm the same Augustinian doctrines, as reflected in the Westminster Confession of Faith.

Click to open or close: Westminster Confession

WESTMINSTER CONFESSION SECTION 3: GOD’S ETERNAL DECREE

  • “God from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass: (Eph. 1:11, Rom. 11:33, Heb. 6:17, Rom. 9:15,18) yet so, as thereby neither is God the author of sin, (James 1:13,17, 1 John 1:5) nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures; nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established. (Acts 2:23, Matt. 17:12, Acts 4:27–28, John 19:11, Prov. 16:33)”.  
  • “Although God knows whatsoever may or can come to pass upon all supposed conditions, (Acts 15:18, 1 Sam. 23:11–12, Matt. 11:21, 23) yet hath He not decreed anything because He foresaw it as future, or as that which would come to pass upon such conditions. (Rom. 9:11, 13, 16, 18)”. 
  • “By the decree of God, for the manifestation of His glory, some men and angels (1 Tim. 5:21, Matt. 25:41) are predestinated unto everlasting life; and others foreordained to everlasting death. (Rom. 9:22–23, Eph. 1:5–6, Prov. 16:4)”. 
  • “These angels and men, thus predestinated, and foreordained, are particularly and unchangeably designed, and their number so certain and definite, that it cannot be either increased or diminished. (2 Tim. 2:19, John 13:18)”.
  • “Those of mankind that are predestinated unto life, God, before the foundation of the world was laid, according to His eternal and immutable purpose, and the secret counsel and good pleasure of His will, hath chosen, in Christ, ß(REMEMBER THIS) unto everlasting glory, (Eph. 1:4, 9, 11, Rom. 8:30, 2 Tim. 1:9, 1 Thess. 5:9) out of His mere free grace and love, without any foresight of faith, or good works, or perseverance in either of them, or any other thing in the creature, as conditions, or causes moving Him thereunto: (Rom. 9:11, 13, 16, Eph. 1:4, 9) and all to the praise of His glorious grace. (Eph. 1:6, 12)” 
  • “As God hath appointed the elect unto glory, so hath He, by the eternal and most free purpose of His will, foreordained all the means thereunto. (1 Pet. 1:2, Eph. 1:4–5, Eph. 2:10, 2 Thess. 2:13) Wherefore, they who are elected, being fallen in Adam, are redeemed by Christ, (1 Thess. 5:9–10, 1 Tit. 2:14) are effectually called unto faith in Christ by His Spirit working in due season, are justified, adopted, sanctified, (Rom. 8:30, Eph. 1:5, 2 Thess. 2:13) and kept by His power, through faith, unto salvation. (1 Pet. 1:5) Neither are any other redeemed by Christ, effectually called, justified, adopted, sanctified, and saved, but the elect only. (John 17:9, Rom. 8:28, John 6:64–65, John 10:26, John 8:47, 1 John 2:19)”.
  • “The rest of mankind God was pleased, according to the unsearchable counsel of His own will, whereby He extendeth or witholdeth mercy, as He pleaseth, for the glory of His sovereign power over His creatures, to pass by; and to ordain them to dishonour and wrath for their sin, to the praise of His glorious justice. (Matt. 11:25–26, Rom. 9:17–18, 21–22, 2 Tim. 2:19–20, Jude 4, 1 Pet. 2:8)”. 
  • “The doctrine of this high mystery of predestination is to be handled with special prudence and care, (Rom. 9:20, Rom. 11:33, Deut. 29:29) that men, attending the will of God revealed in His Word, and yielding obedience thereunto, may, from the certainty of their effectual vocation, be assured of their eternal election. (2 Pet. 1:10) So shall this doctrine afford matter of praise, reverence, and admiration of God; (Eph. 1:6, Rom. 11:33) and of humility, diligence, and abundant consolation to all that sincerely obey the Gospel. (Rom. 11:5, 6, 20, 2 Pet. 1:10, Rom. 8:33, Luke 10:20)”.


What’s in a label?

Note: When someone tells me that they are a Christian, I understand that to mean something specific: that Christ is their Savior, that they follow Him, and therefore that they seek to obey all of His teachings. If that same person were to say they only follow some of Christ’s teachings, then I would likely give a confused look in response.  In my mind I would think, I may not know what they are, but if they say that they do not follow all the teachings of Christ, I know what they are not—a Christian. 

I take a similar approach when someone identifies as a Calvinist or a Reformed Christian. Unless they specify otherwise, I assume they affirm the doctrines historically associated with those labels. If someone claims the name but rejects the foundational convictions that define the system, then while I may not know exactly what theological category they belong to, I would hesitate to call them a Calvinist or a Reformed believer.

This distinction matters because theological labels only have value when they communicate a recognizable set of beliefs. If a person can discard essential doctrines yet retain the label (people do this all the time), the label itself becomes meaningless. For that reason, throughout this discussion, references to “Calvinism” or “Reformed theology” should be understood as referring to those who generally affirm the core doctrines historically tied to those systems — not to everyone who casually adopts the label while holding substantially different views.

In short, one should be careful about claiming a theological identity without first understanding what that identity entails. If someone calls themselves a Calvinist, the term historically implies adherence to the five points; if they reject those points, then the label simply does not apply.

TULIP = Theistic Determinism

TULIP teaches that “God from all eternity did, by the most wise and holy council of His own will, freely and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass”. This is referred to as “God’s eternal decree”. This means all things down to its minutest detail is predetermined to occur as they do by God’s will alone.

TULIP teaches that God is the cause of every historical event, in every minute detail, which includes every attitude, belief, desire, decision, and action, whether for good or for evil, of men, angels and demons, as well as their eternal destination. God chose before creation itself, to predestine, to predetermine and thus cause all that shall come to pass, and all must come to pass as He and He alone has determined it so. This is in part how TULIP defines God’s divine sovereignty by equating it to nothing less than  theistic determinism

The entailments of determinism in the doctrine of Salvation means that without consideration of anything apart from God’s will, that God has chosen certain individuals whom He calls His Elect or Chosen to eternal salvation and therefore all others referred to as the Reprobate, being left in their sinful nature, must be by His determining will, and Limited Atonement, destined to suffer eternal damnation.

Therefore, salvation is not conditioned upon anything the unbeliever does, including believing in Christ for salvation. The unbeliever is of total depravity and cannot believe the Gospel message nor can they willingly, in any form of autonomous exercise, respond in faith to God and or Christ in relation to their salvation unless God has first sovereignly, effectually, causally, and selectively decided to regenerate them. This is called unconditional election, because as per the theology of TULIP, salvation cannot be conditioned upon anything the unbeliever does, thus one must be chosen / elected unto salvation by God, through His grace which is considered irresistible in the sense that Salvation of the individual must come to pass and will Persevere as God and God alone has determined it so.

The mere fact that salvation is not universal means that Unconditional Election of the Totally Depraved unbeliever by Irresistible Grace and Perseverance unto salvation is the selective act of Limited Atonement and partiality by God in His dispensation of Justness and Love. Although not designated a letter in the Acronym TULIP, God’s appointment of all but the elect unto eternal destruction, is an integral element of theistic determinism, referred to as “Double Predestination” by Calvinists or “Reprobation” by Reformists.


The Problems with Theistic Determinism

The central tenet of Calvinism (TULIP) & Reform Traditionalism is to admirably exalt God’s sovereignty, glory, and majesty, by stressing His absolute control over all creation, defined as His predetermination of all things. However, it is as Ironic as it is precarious that this tenet dangerously hinges on:

1. The Character Assassination of God

Despite any denial in the Westminster Confession, the path of TULIP can lead to no other destination then one that concludes in the falsehood that God is the author, creator, and the cause of evil. The very conclusion that the namesake of Calvinist doctrine, John Calvin himself stated when he said: “From this it is easy to conclude how foolish and frail is the support of divine justice afforded by the suggestion that evils come to be not by [God’s] will, but merely by his permission. Of course, so far as they are evils, which men perpetrate with their evil mind, as I shall show in greater detail shortly, I admit that they are not pleasing to God. But it is a quite frivolous refuge to say that God permits them, when Scripture shows Him not only willing but the author of them” – The Eternal Predestination of God, 176).

The same conclusion that TULIP supporter John Piper, who in agreement with, quoted Mark Talbot: “God … brings about all things in accordance with His Will. In other words, it isn’t just that God manages to turn the evil aspects of our world to good for those who love him, it is rather that he himself brings about these evil aspects for his glory and his people’s good. This includes as incredible and as unacceptable as it may currently seem — God’s having even brought about the Nazis brutality at Birkenau and Auschwitz as well as the terrible killings of Dennis Rader and even the sexual abuse of a young child”.  

2. The Stumbling for Unbelievers

The doctrines summarized by the acronym TULIP have presented a significant stumbling block for many unbelievers. Upon encountering Calvinism’s understanding of God as absolutely deterministic in all things, some have concluded that God appears morally unjust, emotionally distant, or incompatible with the biblical portrait of divine love. For such individuals, these conclusions have become a reason to reject not merely Calvinism, but Christianity itself.

It is important, however, to make a distinction. Those who believe in or teach Calvinism are not responsible for another person’s unbelief or rejection of Christ. Each individual is accountable for his own response to the gospel. The concern here is not with the sincerity, character, or motives of Calvinists, but with whether certain doctrinal claims may create unnecessary obstacles for those seeking to understand the Christian faith.

To be fair—and intellectually honest—Calvinism has also attracted many people to Christianity. Its strong emphasis on Scripture, its focus on the sovereignty of God, and its historical influence have made it appealing to countless believers throughout history. Its impact can be seen in several important areas:

Political Thought: John Calvin emphasized the importance of limited government and decentralized authority, ideas that contributed to the development of constitutional and democratic principles in the West.

Education: Calvin established a theological academy in Geneva that helped shape Protestant education. His influence extended throughout Europe, encouraging literacy and learning for the purpose of studying Scripture.

Theological and Social Influence: Calvin’s emphasis on moral discipline, vocation, and personal responsibility left a lasting mark on Western civilization, influencing education, social reform, and public life.

Therefore, the issue is not whether Calvinism has produced positive effects. It undoubtedly has. The question is whether a doctrine should be judged primarily by the benefits it produces or by whether it accurately reflects biblical truth.

For the sake of argument, suppose that for every eight unbelievers drawn to Christianity through Calvinism, two others are driven away by it. Some might argue that such a ratio alone would justify supporting the system. Yet if numerical success becomes the standard by which we evaluate doctrine, we risk prioritizing results over truth.

The Christian’s responsibility is not merely to present a message that attracts the greatest number of people, but to present the truth as faithfully as possible. If an unbeliever rejects Christ, let it be because he rejects the truth of the gospel itself, not because he has stumbled over a theological error that Christians have attached to it.

For this reason, some argue that debates concerning Calvinism are not salvation-critical. In one sense, that is true. A person’s salvation does not depend upon whether he correctly understands every aspect of election or predestination. Yet the question remains: for whom is this issue not salvation-critical? It may not be critical for the believer who has already come to Christ, but what about the unbeliever whose understanding of God, grace, and salvation is shaped by these doctrines before he ever embraces the gospel? If a theological system presents God in a way that discourages faith rather than encourages it, then its implications deserve careful examination.

Click to open or close: qualitative testimonies revealing Calvinism as contributing factor in deconversion or rejection of Christianity

The following are just a few of the thousands of qualitative testimonies posted on line by unbelievers who claim Calvinism as contributing factor in deconversion or rejection of Christianity. This reiterates the question: For whom is this topic not salvation critical? 

Allow me to clarify that there is no justifiable cause, reason or excuse – including the teachings of Calvinism – for the rejection of God.  However, while it is one thing for an unbeliever to reject God because we as believers spoke of God’s truth, it is an entirely different thing for an unbeliever to reject God because we spoke falsehood of God’s truth. We as believers (Calvinist, Reformed Traditionalist, non-Calvinist and non-Reformed Traditionalist) should all want to continually reaffirm that what we are teaching of God’s word. is true to God’s word.   

1. Former Calvinist describes “God creates some for damnation”

“It really was impossible to understand why God would save some and damn others, and yet hold the damned accountable.”

Source = https://www.evangelicaloutreach.org/excalvinist.htm

This is a direct deconversion testimony from a former Calvinist who identifies the moral tension of predestination as a major crisis point.


2. Childhood exposure to Calvinism causing moral objection

“I saw the injustice in the belief that God creates ‘some for glory, and some for damnation.’” 

Source = https://new.exchristian.net/2017/10/the-de-conversion-of-calvinist.html

This reflects a common theme in deconversion narratives: Calvinist doctrine is perceived as morally troubling even at an early age.


3. Rejection of God’s goodness due to predestination logic

“If God brings people into this world… and then die only to end up in hell, I reject the teaching that he is good.” 

Source = https://new.exchristian.net/2017/10/the-de-conversion-of-calvinist.html

This shows a direct link between Calvinistic predestination concepts and rejection of God’s moral character.


4. “Calvinism made belief in God harder” 

From an ex-Calvinist discussion thread:

“Predestination is the thing that mostly led me to start de-converting… Is it possible to want to be a Christian but not be because God didn’t choose you?” 

Source = https://www.reddit.com/r/exchristian/comments/cis6f8

Here the struggle is not intellectual alone, but existential—uncertainty about divine choice undermining assurance and motivation.


5. Calvinism described as “Expletive word” leading to loss of free will confidence

“Calvinism is a huge Expletive word and I don’t recommend anybody believe in it… I didn’t feel like I had free will for a while.” 

Source = Will not post the source for the protection of young or sensitive viewers

This reflects another recurring theme: psychological distress from determinism/predestination frameworks.


6. Rejection based on moral intuition about God

“Calvinists are just honest about it being predestined… it just happens to also be one of the most miserable ways to be a Christian.” 

Source = https://www.reddit.com/r/exchristian/comments/1plsp01/calvinists_are_just_honest_about_it_being

This illustrates how some deconversions are driven by emotional and moral resistance to the perceived implications of Calvinism, even when acknowledging its internal consistency.


3. The Stumbling of Believers

Another aspect of TULIP that can become a stumbling block, particularly for believers, concerns how Calvinism explains those who once appeared to respond to God’s grace, profess faith in Christ, and yet later fall away from that profession. Within the framework of TULIP, such an outcome presents a serious difficulty. If God’s sovereignty is understood as deterministically governing all things (including thoughts and beliefs), if grace is irresistible, if election is unconditional, and if the saints necessarily persevere, then the ultimate apostasy of a genuine believer should be impossible.

To address this apparent paradox, some Calvinists appeal to passages such as 2 Thessalonians 2:11–12, arguing that God may send a delusion upon certain individuals, causing them to falsely believe that they belong among the elect when they do not. According to this explanation, some who profess faith in Christ were never truly saved but were instead under a divinely ordained deception concerning their spiritual condition.

The difficulty with this interpretation is that it appears to involve both a questionable reading of the text and a problematic line of reasoning. A “strong delusion” that causes someone to believe what is false would seem, in its most direct sense, to involve the rejection of Christ and the acceptance of falsehood, not the confession that Jesus Christ is Lord and Savior. Moreover, Scripture teaches that all people, apart from Christ, are born in sin, unbelief, and spiritual corruption. If depravity, unbelief, and delight in unrighteousness are sufficient grounds for God to impose such a delusion, then the question naturally arises: why would this principle not apply universally?

Absolutely, there are people who confess Christ – not with their heart – but only with their mouth. People who believe they are saved when indeed they are not, but despite what TULIP otherwise teaches, such delusions are self imposed and do not come from God. 

Ironically, the very doctrines that Calvinism presents as a source of confidence and assurance can, when taken to their logical conclusion, produce uncertainty. If God sovereignly determines all beliefs and if some professing Christians can be divinely given over to a false assurance of election, then what basis remains for any individual Calvinist to be certain that his or her own faith is genuine rather than delusional? How can one know that their confidence in Christ is not itself part of the very deception they believe God may impose upon others?

In response, Calvinism often teaches that assurance is found, at least in part, through the observable evidence of regeneration in the believer’s life. Good works, perseverance, obedience, and spiritual fruit are viewed as signs confirming one’s election and salvation. There is certainly biblical warrant for recognizing that genuine faith produces visible fruit. Scripture repeatedly teaches that transformed lives bear witness to the reality of God’s saving work.

However, Scripture consistently presents these works as the result of faith, not the foundation of assurance. The believer’s ultimate confidence rests in God’s promises, fulfilled through the substitutionary death, resurrection, and saving work of Jesus Christ. Assurance is grounded first and foremost in faith in Christ and His promises, while good works serve as evidence of that faith.

The concern, therefore, is that within a deterministic theological framework—particularly one that allows for the possibility that God may cause individuals to believe they are among the elect when they are not—the believer’s confidence in God’s promises is undermined. If one’s faith itself could be part of a divinely ordained delusion, then faith alone can no longer function as the basis of assurance. The result is that assurance is increasingly sought through self-examination and the observation of one’s works rather than through trust in the promises of God. In this way, the practical effect is a shift away from assurance grounded solely in Christ and toward assurance grounded in works. (cf. Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter 3, “Of God’s Eternal Decree,” and related discussions on assurance).

4. The Questioning of the Need for Evangelization

Again, to be fair and intellectually honest, Calvinism is not inherently anti-evangelistic, but one could argue that its doctrines—especially election and sovereignty—can in practice lead some people to reduced urgency or altered motivation. Calvinists, strongly reject this conclusion and see evangelism as a necessary and commanded instrument of God’s saving work. While Calvinism may strongly affirm evangelism and missions, the concern comes not from Calvinism’s formal doctrine towards evangelizing but instead the concern is with how certain emphases can be perceived or applied by the individual Calvinist in practice:

  • “The elect will be saved no matter what I do”
  • “Evangelism doesn’t ultimately determine outcomes
  • human evangelistic effort cannot ultimately affect conversion
  • persuasion or urgency seems less necessary
  • outcomes are already fixed
  • human participation feels secondary or instrumental only
  • evangelism became less emphasized than doctrinal precision or church order
  • confidence in “God will save His elect anyway” led to passivity
    • strong assurance of God’s saving plan
      vs.
    • urgency to evangelize the lost

One might ask what difference this makes as long as the individual evangelizes. In return I submit the rhetorical question of which doctor would you prefer to be under the care of:

  • The doctor whose motivation is just to do his job and fulfill a commitment?
  • The doctor who is motivated with an urgency to provide care?  

In comparing how Arminianism (Not that I am promoting Arminianism – I am not) and Calvinism differ specifically in their “logic of evangelism,” the real contrast becomes clearer. In Calvinism, evangelism is not about “making salvation possible,” but about “carrying out God’s means.” In Arminianism, the individual may accept or reject the gospel, and their response has eternal consequence. So evangelism is about “presenting a genuine offer that must be personally received.” This presents the question of which produces a more “decision-centered” urgency. The answer to this question lies with the honesty of the individual Calvinist.

Do you feel an urgency to evangelize?


 

End of Article

Knowledge Check

Should not ignore Calvinism Quiz

Was this article helpful?
0 out of 5 stars
5 Stars 0%
4 Stars 0%
3 Stars 0%
2 Stars 0%
1 Stars 0%
5
Please Share Your Feedback
How Can We Improve This Article?

Leave a Reply

Table of Contents
Scroll to Top