Up to what the Gospel is, Orthodox Christianity is pretty clear. Instead of focusing on what faith is or what sin is, I want to discuss, compare, and contrast the three major views on soteriology in Christianity: Arminianism, Calvinism, and Provisionism. In order to make this more readable, distinctive Arminianism discussion will have green font. Calvinism will be in blue. Provisionism will be in red. Arminians believe that although we are enslaved to sin, God uses "prevenient" grace to bring us to the point where we can willingly choose to believe Jesus and be saved. Calvinists believe that God sovereignly selects individual people to be saved without rejecting those who were not elected. Provisionists agree a lot with Arminians but with a few major slants like a rejection of prevenient grace for example. Provisionist contend the God has equally provided salvation for each and every human being in equal measure. The goal of this post is compare these views with each other using the popular bullet points adherents use and discuss major Bible verses from each point of view. I will also attempt to talk about some major deviations.
There is a fourth view that I am not going to talk much about because it's not what I would consider orthodox, Open-Theism, and I will save it for a different time. Simply put, Open-theism is the belief that God does not know the future because the future does not yet exist. Therefore we have libertarian free will in everything including if we choose to follow Jesus or not. My problem is that God says he does know the future.
I make known the end from the beginning, from ancient times, what is still to come. I say, ‘My purpose will stand, and I will do all that I please.’ - Isaiah 46:10
So I'm skipping this idea for now.
Although Christians agree that salvation is found in Jesus and that a person must put their faith in Jesus and believe that He died on the cross and rose again three days later and that if a person fails to believe that person rejects Christ's sacrifice and they will be going to hell forever when they die instead of being with God forever, the disagreement comes in explaining how does a person gets to the point where they do believe. Or what happens to the people who reject Christ and why? Also interesting is that each one leads one to adopting a distinctive theodicy which is how one looks at the Problem of Evil. I do not want to imply that all orthodox, heaven-going, Bible-believing, Holy Ghost-filled Christians must adopt one of these views. Also many people have varying slants. You need to agree with God, not me, or anyone else. The thing here is that we need to just do our best to stick to the scripture. At this time we will not cover everything possible somethings will be left untouched.
These are issues that people have always struggled with for a long time. Calvinism started around the time to the Protestant Reformation and I do not want to make things sound like no one were talking, writing, and thinking about these things before John Calvin. For the sake of discussion, we will be talking about soteriology from modern perspectives
Here, we will start with three slides that summarize each one. Feel free to click on the tabs to see each one.
- Calvinism
- Traditionalism/Provisionism
- Arminianism
Please look at the "Calvinism" tab. I'd like to use the acrostic Calvinism uses to summarize it's doctrines that sets it apart from other views of soteriology, The acrostic is T-U-L-I-P which spells "tulip". We are going to take each of the 5 points compare what Arminians and Provisionists teach about the same thing.
The "T" stands for "Total Depravity".
Total Depravity is the doctrine that every human being is enslaved to sin. We are unable to respond to God on our own because our wills are enslaved to sin and not able to submit to God. This is the state that we are born into and it takes God to reveal the truth to us so we can come to Jesus and be saved. For me there is a scripture that I really think support this doctrine,
5 Those who live according to the flesh have their minds set on what the flesh desires; but those who live in accordance with the Spirit have their minds set on what the Spirit desires. 6 The mind governed by the flesh is death, but the mind governed by the Spirit is life and peace. 7 The mind governed by the flesh is hostile to God; it does not submit to God’s law, nor can it do so. 8 Those who are in the realm of the flesh cannot please God. - Romans 8:5-8
This verse explains just how messed up we are before we are saved. It shows just how utter broken and lost an unredeemed person is, The point really caught my attention because although I have been a Christian since and early age, I did not realize that this verse described me too before I came to Christ. I did not realize how special and miraculous it is that I want to be with Jesus because I thought I chose Jesus just as casually as I chose my career. I use the term "casually" because I thought that I reasoned myself to choosing salvation. I did not realize how much God had to move and fix in me to that I could be saved. I had to wrestle with this passage. If my mind was governed by sinful flesh, then how did I submit to God? How does any one? There is a flavor of Calvinism referred to as "Hyper-Calvinists" who teach that total depravity means that we shouldn't evangelize or preach to unbelievers because they are unable to hear anyway. The problem of total depravity is answered by the next petal in the tulip drawn from scripture. Provisionists and Arminians have a different slant on this point and I want to discuss their points before discussing the "U". Admittedly, I think that this point should not be contentious because it seems so clear to me.
Largely, it seems to me that most Arminians do not try to circumvent this doctrine but would explain it differently than Calvinsts understand it. Many believe that God gives sinners prevenient grace which is just enough grace to enable people to make a free will choice. The Arminian tab above has an image that lists "Free Will" as a corresponding counter point to Total Depravity. Many folk use "Free Will" to mean that people are free to make choices apart from any outside influence even from God himself, while Calvinists are teaching that we are only saved by God butting in on our lives. The problem I see is that they hold the idea of Free Will so high that everything is interpreted in light of people having free will. They think that without Free Will there is no way that a person can be held responsible for their actions if he or she could not do otherwise.
Provisionists, like Professor Leighton Flowers thinks Arminians grant Calvinists too much agreement on this. He argues that the passage I cited above does not tells us that depravity equals inability to respond morally to God's offer of salvation through Jesus Christ. To which I have to point out that responding to salvation and humbling yourself is submitting to God and pleasing him. I quote:
7 The mind governed by the flesh is hostile to God; it does not submit to God’s law, nor can it do so. 8 Those who are in the realm of the flesh cannot please God. - Romans 8:7,8
If you look at the Provisionists tab, its acrostic spells "PROVIDE". The "P" and the "R" corresponds to the "T" in Calvinism. Slipping in the word "morally" seems to make Flowers feel comfortable in arguing that although People Sin we are still responsible to respond to God because God offers salvation and therefore we have the ability to do respond. He seems to forget that when Paul said that we cannot submit to God's law Paul was referring to the whole law - moral, civil, and ceremonial! Making a distinction does not change meaning of the verse. Each view definitely agrees that people sin, but disagree over what does this nature of sin mean for humanity's relationship to God.
Unconditional Election.
Calvinism attempts to answer the question as to how we overcome "Total Depravity" through God choosing to regenerate those God has chosen to save that they will choose to put their faith in Jesus Christ. What is meant by "regenerate" is that God changes the will of a person so that they want to believe. Given the verses given above from Romans 8, it would make sense that God would have to do something radical to us so that we could be saved, because of our unregenerate state. The Calvinist position is that God makes this selection without regard to what the person has or has not done. From a human point of view the election of God is unconditional with regards to the believer that no believer earns salvation or became chosen by anything they did or didn't do. The is "U" in the TULIP acrostic. Further Calvinism teaches that the elect are predestined to believe and put their faith in Christ.
Arminianism takes a slightly different slant, They contend that God definitely elects believers but argue that the election is conditioned on the faith of believers. One of the main differences between conditional election and unconditional election seems to me that Calvinists are arguing that Election starts with God but Arminianism starts with the human. There are several slants in Arminianism about what Election is and what it isn't. Some Armininans argue that God looks down through time and based on knowing who would choose to believe, God elects to save the elect. Other Arminians just chuck the idea of Election all together or tries to tell us that God just respects the choice of his creatures and does not force anyone to be part of the Elect.
Provisionists, like Leighton Flowers, conclude that no way could Calvinists could be right because they are completely committed to the idea that God has given humanity the right to accept or reject Christ. They also assert that this option is equally given to all people. This is why the "O" in their acrostic is "Open Door". The scriptures in the graphic are Ephesians 1:13; Romans 10:21; 2 Peter 3:9; 1 Timothy 2:4; John 3:16; Matthew 11:28. Flowers and many other think that the argument about God looking forward through time is not tenable. All Christians would agree that God loves people and Jesus is the only way to Salvation.
Unfortunately there is something missing in their understanding regarding the scriptures cited in the graphic and that while they do tells us that God does not turn away anyone who comes to him, they do not say anyone can come to him. But we have a scripture about that ability. In John 6:44, Jesus said
44 “No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws them, and I will raise them up at the last day.
This means that scripture not only teaches that the door to faith in Jesus Christ is only open by those drawn by the Father but that God has predestined the Elect to be saved.
In him we were also chosen, having been predestined according to the plan of him who works out everything in conformity with the purpose of his will, - Ephesians 1:11
Limited Atonement.
Next up is "L". Limited Atonement in Calvinism is the teaching that Jesus' sacrifice was only for the Elect and not for every individual human being. I do not fully get this point and this is the one point in Calvinism. Also, this is the one point that both Arminians and Provisionists agree on: that Limited Atonement is wrong. It's a little more complicated than just right/wrong because of the consequence of the idea. I mean if the Atonement is not limited in some way, then why aren't all people saved?Before I started really looking into this, I thought that the answer to this was Free Will. People missed heaven because they chose to reject Jesus. Case closed - I thought. You cannot have the doctrine of Penal Substitutionary Atonement, teaching that the Atonement only applies to those who believe, and be consistent. Penal Substitutionary Atonement is the teaching that Jesus literally died in the place of the believer - suffered and punished instead of us. It is historically a Reformed (Calvinisitic) understanding of Atonement. Yet many Arminians still affirm this yet also teach that Salvation as something like insurance that anyone can buy into through their own faith without God's involvement outside of just offering it. I do not see how you can have it both ways.
Many Arminians refer to their view as "Universal Atonement" where Jesus' sacrifice atones for the sins of every single human being whom has lived or will live. And this atonement is applied to those who believe. And again orthodox Christian faith is that only the believers in what Jesus did and who he is will be saved. We have that in common.
Provisionists use "V" in their acrostic to stand for "Vicarious Atonement", It is how they want to have the cake of Substituationary Atonement and eat it too of their own free will. Jesus again takes the place of the believer in paying the debt of sin, but the icky parts of the Reformation version called "Penal Substitution" where the punishment and wrath of God being poured out on Jesus instead of the believer is not pushed as hard. Besides heaven forbid using the same languages as Calvinists. I'm writing in generalities. You can easily find Arminians who accept either Vicarious Substitution or Penal Substituation. Same with some Calvinists or Provisionists. It's best to ask if you need to know what an individual person believes.
Provisionists and Arminians keep saying that Limited Atonement is wrong because God did not limit the Atonement, but people limit the Atonement through their rejection of Christ. They also point to many Scriptures that they say that tells us that Jesus died for all people. One example is
I urge, then, first of all, that petitions, prayers, intercession and thanksgiving be made for all people— 2 for kings and all those in authority, that we may live peaceful and quiet lives in all godliness and holiness. 3 This is good, and pleases God our Savior, 4 who wants all people to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth. 5 For there is one God and one mediator between God and mankind, the man Christ Jesus, 6 who gave himself as a ransom for all people. This has now been witnessed to at the proper time. - 1 Timothy 2:1-6
They usually point to verse 4 to say that God wants all people to be saved. Calvinists usually counter by attempting to argue that the passage about all individual persons, but kinds of people, given Paul admonishes that the context is prayer should be offered for the goods of all people and then different kinds of people are described, kings and all those in authority. The bit about God wanting "all people to be saved" isn't elaborated on. It makes me wonder if the problem is that we should looking closer at what was meant in the word "wants" mean because in Kione Greek there is more than one word translated in English as "want" or "desire". In this case the word is Thelo which mean to desire, to want. Compare this with another passage that is often used to deny limited atonement.
The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. Instead he is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance. 2 Peter 3:9
In that passage, "not wanting anyone to perish" is translated from the word Boulomai which "means to will deliberately, to have a purpose." It's interesting to me that the same English words are being used to translate two different words representing what is really two different ideas. In 1 Timothy 2:4, Paul tells us that God desires that all people are saved but it does not promise that all people will be saved. And Peter comes from the perspective of God's elect people and reminds us that it's not God's intent to loose any of the elect. We know he is talking of the Elect because of 2 Peter 1:10,11
10 Therefore, my brothers and sisters,[a] make every effort to confirm your calling and election. For if you do these things, you will never stumble, 11 and you will receive a rich welcome into the eternal kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.
The whole epistle is written from the point of view of talking to Believes - the Elect of God. Obviously, it will take a lot more time to look at how Thelo (θέλω) and Boulomia (βουλήματι) are the same and different, but it would be the best way to definitively see what God desires when it comes to the Elect and the non-Elect. Also, it becomes clear that I don't really know how to understand the scope of the Atonement when it comes to unbelievers. I'm just don't think any of the three views I am discussing here adequately accounts for all the scriptures. I just don't think Free Will is a good enough explanation of why people end up lost if God's desire is for everyone to be saved. And yet I don't think the explanation that God outright rejects some and accept others for salvation represents God's character or the teaching of modern Calvinism either. It's a pickle alright. One I will revisit in a different article later.
I would think all Christians would agree that Jesus atoned for the sins of those who put their faith in him, whether you think its a synergistic work of God working in tandem with free will (Arminians or Provisionists) or that it was monergistic in that God did saved you unconditionally through Irresistible grace, which is the next point.
Irresistible Grace
We are now at Irresistible Grace. In Calvinism, it is the point that if God goes through the work of giving a person saving faith they will come to Jesus infallibly. Notice they are not arguing that not people do not resist the grace of God unto salvation, only that when God calls an elect person that person comes to Jesus without fail. I used to think that God just called everyone and people made their own choices but it's more complicated than that.
The Arminians counter with "Obstructable Grace". By that, they mean that God's grace can be stopped by us. We can reject it or accept it. As you may have already guessed I have a problem with this. Did I say one? I should have said many problems. I realized that many people who hold such views don't think that it diminishes God's power, character, and sovereignty because God has chosen to give humanity a level of autonomy. :"Autonomy" is the only word I can use because if you can do what you want (ie reject Christ) despite what God wants (save you) then that means by definition that you have autonomous free will. This makes no sense so there is a problem with the logic here. Sovereignty means control. If something is outside of your power and control, then you are not sovereign over that thing - then you are not God if there is something - anything - outside of your power. Think of it another way. Does it really make sense for a limited human being like you or I could stop the omnipotent God from giving you or anyone unmerited favor? It's even more ludicrous to think we could demand such a thing as grace.
The Provisionists acrostic is "I" for Illuminating Grace and "D" for destroyed. They correlate to the Calvinist doctrine of Irresistible Grace. I don't really see them as opposition because the Grace that both views are talking about deals with God revealing truth to us. I don't really see "D" as controversial because Jesus tells us the following:
24 I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins. - John 8:24
The difference between Provisionism and Calvinism stems from whether you believe your will is autonomous or not. I think Calvinism is correct on this point. I can find no scripture where God tells us that he will or has to work around or though our free will. God does whatever he wants when he wants to do it.
The LORD does whatever pleases him, in the heavens and on the earth, in the seas and all their depths. - Psalm 135:6
One of my main issues with the Arminians and Provisionists points is that Jesus said that the people drawn by the Father in John 6:44 are the same people he is going to raise to life on the last day. If Jesus can make that claim then, no one can be drawn and then choose to reject the call to salvation, or later lost.
“No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws them, and I will raise them up at the last day. - John 6:44
Additionally, Jesus told his disciples that they did not choose him but he chose them. I'm unwilling to argue that my will is in some way more free then theirs! Or to argue that the disciples could ask whatsoever of the Father in Jesus' name but he will not give me what I need if I ask. Or that I'm not supposed to remain in Jesus and bear fruit. See the problem with suggesting that Jesus chose the Apostles but does not choose us today?
Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, and ordained you, that ye should go and bring forth fruit, and that your fruit should remain: that whatsoever ye shall ask of the Father in my name, he may give it you. - John 15:16
Let us look at it in a different way. Is there anyone who wants to be saved, and yet can't because God did not draw them? Nope. That won't happen. Is there anyone who is saved and yet isn't because God does not want them? Nope - two times. If Arminians and Provisionist were right that saving Grace can be resisted, then the answers would have been "Yes". The reasons why people are saved are grounded in the character of God not in the whims of man.
Perseverance of the saints
Last, we need to talk about "P" - "Perseverance of the the saints". In Calvinism, it only means that one cannot lose the salvation Jesus purchased for believers. Although many Christians teach this and you don't even have to be a Calvinist to affirm this some people, especially associated with Baptists, refer to this idea as "Once Saved, Always Saved." Provisionists like Leighton Flowers agree that believers cannot loose their salvation. It is the "E" standing for "Eternal Security" in the Provisionism acrostic. Although many Arminians, or people who just believe in Free Will, agree with not being able to loose their salvation, the point on the Arminian slide says that a believer can fall from grace - meaning it is possible to loose their salvation. Although those people who don't believe they can loose their salvation because God is powerful and gracious enough to keep them no matter what happens are correct but I think they are being wildly inconsistent if they also assert their salvation comes through them giving God permission to save them because of their faith. If you choose to go into heaven by an act of faith, then why can't you also change your mind and choose to reject God? You can't have it both ways. They both can't be true. I think the idea of falling from grace came from a need to explain apostasy. But scripture explains that someone who claims salvation and later recants was never truly saved in the first place.
19 They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us. - 1 John 2:19
In conclusion, let's look at a final question. One that will help to understand which view is correct: Does God hold us accountable or responsible for our sin? Is there as difference? I'd say there definitely is.
19 One of you will say to me: “Then why does God still blame us? For who is able to resist his will?” 20 But who are you, a human being, to talk back to God? “Shall what is formed say to the one who formed it, ‘Why did you make me like this?’”[h] 21 Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for special purposes and some for common use? - Romans 9:19-21
This passage speaks squarely to the point of human responsibility,. It is Paul handling an objection to why can God hold us accountable for our sins and nature if we are in the state we are in because of God's will. The word translated "blame" is μέμφεται which means "find fault" or according to the link, it means but “to charge with responsibility for a punishable offense”. To be held accountable for something means to be deserving to pay for the consequences of something. But that really isn't the same thing as being "responsible" because you can be held accountable for something you are not responsible because you are not at fault. For example, if your spouse dies you are still accountable for paying their fines and debts even if you did not personally sign up for them. I would argue against Leighton Flowers' interpretation that God holds us responsible for our sins because we can choose to accept or reject Christ. God does not hold us responsible but holds us accountable for our sins. We are enslaved to sin before Jesus frees us, therefore we are not responsible for our state. However we are accountable because God says we are accountable.
Further notice the word translated "will" is βουλήματι which I mentioned above means "will" and "purpose". I am planning to delve more into what the Bible means when it discusses God's will, but the truth is what we can say for sure that God can do what ever God wants to do and does not need to defer or reference what we want or think.
Conclusion
Arminians fall into the sovereignty of God, yet want to retain free will. Provisionists want to elevate God's providence above the Sovereignty of God. Many Calvinists (those who go too far) elevate God's sovereignty about God's providence. Balance is where we need to be. Today Calvinists and Reformed theology are often used interchangeably and some think they are interchangeable and others think that they are not. Where ever in the debate you end up, the most important thing is throw yourself on the mercy of God and believe that Jesus indeed died for your sins and rose the third day, This is the Gospel and it's not the main issue regarding how you get to the point where you do have faith when before that point you did not. The important thing is to get there.
For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance[a]: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5 and that he appeared to Cephas,[b] and then to the Twelve. 6 After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. 7 Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, - 1 Corinthians 15:3-7
