For 500 years, theologians and clergymen have fought with the text of Romans 9-11, and they have often fought with each other over this difficult text. For whatever reason, the church has struggled throughout the centuries to get its collective head around this text, and it has not only cost the church unity, but from time-to-time, it has cost lives.
The struggle came to a head in the early 1600s when a group of theologians who had studied at the feet of a Dutch theologian named Jacob Arminius offered up five points of dissent with the orthodox view of their day. They are called “The Five Articles of Remonstrance” and they questioned the orthodox, or the reformed view of salvation, which had been shaped largely by the teachings of a French theologian named John Calvin. Thus, the battle over this text is often referred to as Calvinism versus Arminianism.
Here are the arguments, or “remonstrance”, of the Arminians . . .
First, they argue that salvation is granted to “those who, through the grace of the Holy Ghost, shall believe on this his Son Jesus, and shall persevere in this faith and obedience of faith, through this grace, even to the end.” The Calvinists respond that salvation is offered only to those whom God calls and is available only to the elect. This doctrine is known as “unconditional election”.
Second, they argue that “Jesus Christ, the Savior of the world, died for all men and for every man, so that he has obtained for them all, by his death on the cross, redemption, and the forgiveness of sins.” The Calvinists see this argument as superfluous because it would be meaningless for God to make an effectual atonement for those whom God has not chosen. This doctrine is known as “limited atonement”.
Third, the Arminians argue “that man has not saving grace of himself.” This doctrine is known as “total depravity” and it is in this point that Calvinists and Arminians find near agreement. The difference seems to be that the Calvinists limit those for whom the Holy Spirit chooses to overwhelm the depravity of the sin nature while the Arminians favor the notion that the Holy Spirit calls out to all men.
The fourth argument begins with an affirmation of the absolute necessity of the Holy Spirit’s work in the regeneration of humanity to salvation, but they make the following disclaimer: “as respects the mode of the operation of this grace, it is not irresistible.” It is on this point, that the Calvinists are most dogmatic. Who is man to resist God’s call? God’s call on His chosen is never an act of futility, therefore, the call of God is not something humanity is even capable of resisting. This doctrine is known as “irresistible grace”.
Fifth, and finally, the Arminians pose a question, rather than making a definitive argument. The point is whether a believer will always persevere in his faith, so they question, “But whether they are capable, through negligence, of forsaking again the first beginnings of their life in Christ, of again returning to this present evil world, of turning away from the holy doctrine which was delivered them, of losing a good conscience, of becoming devoid of grace, that must be more particularly determined out of the Holy Scriptures before they can teach it with the full persuasion of their minds.” The Calvinists immediately recoil at this because it places humans in a position of resisting, rejecting, or defying the expressed will of God expressed in election. This doctrine is known as “perseverance of the saints”.
To make these points easier to remember, we have rearranged the arguments and the corresponding responses into the acrostic, “TULIP”.
Thus, the reformed doctrine view is that humanity is totally depraved, in absolute necessity of the calling of the Holy Spirit to enlighten his darkened heart; that the calling of the Holy Spirit is offered to the elect alone, and offered unconditionally; that the effectual, atoning work of Christ at Calvary is limited to those who are chosen; that the call of the Holy Spirit is completely effectual, and is therefore, irresistible by human will; and that the calling of the elect is effectual to the end, thus guaranteeing the perseverance of the elect.
In contrast, the position of the Arminians is that man is totally depraved and in absolute necessity of the Holy Spirit’s calling in their lives, but that the call of the Holy Spirit is given as God moves in the hearts of all humans, and is given without any regard to the election of any particular person, and not to another; that the atoning work of Christ at Calvary is universally available, and effectual, to all who respond to the calling of the Holy Spirit, all the while recognizing that the call of the Holy Spirit is something that may be resisted by the will of humanity. Finally, they express concerns—falling far short of any dogmatism—that the resistible nature of this call may open the possibility that humanity could turn away from their faith at some point, thus relinquishing the saving grace that was, or could have been, theirs.
While I love a good discussion about theology, what I know about these issues is that we have been fighting over this issue for over 500 years, and to date, neither side seems to be able to win. For every verse the Arminians can offer, the Calvinists can offer their own, and vice versa.
I wonder if God gave us this dispute so that people who like to debate theology will have something to do while the rest of us live ours out . . .
