For Calvinism

by Michael Scott Horton

the theology expressed in this book, necessarily makes God the author of sin and evil by “good and necessary consequence” of its claim that everything, including the fall of Adam, was and is foreordained by God. In other words, I worry that this theology undermines the goodness of God’s character.

First, Calvin was not the first Calvinist.

The standard

“sufficient for the world, efficient for the elect alone.”

No one began with predestination as the heart of Reformed theology; it gained importance to the extent that it was challenged from within.

The truth is, there isn’t a central dogma in Calvinism, although it is certainly God-centered—and, more specifically, Christ-centered, since it is only in the Son that God’s saving purposes and action in history are most clearly revealed. Yet even in this case, Christ does not serve as a central idea or thesis from which we deduce other doctrines. Rather, we are taught by Scripture itself to find Christ at its center from Genesis to Revelation.

The fallen will, bound to sin, is unable even to seek God’s grace apart from the grace that he gives to his elect.

everyone and that it is consequently in the power of every person either to accept or reject the gospel by their own free will.

Arminians do hold that sufficient prevenient grace is given to all people to exercise their free will, and election is based on God’s foreknowledge of those who will in fact cooperate with his grace in faith and good works. Final salvation is dependent to some extent on one’s cooperation with God’s grace.

Therefore, “total depravity” is something that happens to human nature, not something that arises from it as created by God. “This is the inherited corruption,” says Calvin, “which the church fathers termed ‘original sin,’ meaning by the word ‘sin,’ the depravation of a nature previously good and pure.”

Reformation theology holds that the sinful inclination itself incurs God’s judgment, and this inclination not only weakens but imprisons the whole person. No one can overcome this inclination through free will. Cooperation with grace will not heal the soul. From the sinful condition proceed sinful acts.

The “total” in total depravity refers to its extensiveness, not intensiveness: that is, to the all-encompassing scope of our fallenness.

The Spirit is at work savingly in the elect, but also in common grace toward the reprobate.

Fallen human beings are not irreligious but idolatrous. The image must be suppressed because it is still there. Like a mirror that reveals a reflection that we do not want to see, it must be distorted, covered over, and smeared with mud. Because it reflects the God whose existence stands over against us in judgment, the image of God is no longer redolent of high office, but is a burden to be cast off. Precisely because it cannot be eradicated, it is disfigured beyond recognition.

First, we need to distinguish between natural and moral ability.

It’s not a question of whether we choose, but of what we choose.

Our choices are determined by our nature; we choose what we desire and we desire what is most consistent with our nature.

Second, we need to distinguish between freedom in relation to God and freedom in relation to other fallen human beings.

In fact, sin is never devoid of good and our best acts are never devoid of sin.

Sin and evil cannot create, but only destroy. But not destroy completely.

The rays of God’s glory in creation still manage to penetrate through the mud that human beings have smeared onto the mirror, and God’s gracious providence (what later Reformed theology would call common grace) enables humanity even in its perversity to arrive at some semblance of truth, goodness, and beauty in things earthly.

Calvin took creation and the fall more seriously. He took issue with the popular notion that God simply holds out his hand in an offer of pardon to those who turn themselves toward him—and that this constitutes the grace of God in regeneration. God’s revelation in creation renders us all inexcusable. In it God manifests his glory sufficiently for all people to be held accountable, but because of our blindness we do not see it.

In general revelation, God’s existence, power, wisdom, goodness, and justice are displayed. However, nature does not reveal the gospel, because this good news was only revealed to Adam and Eve after the fall. It’s not surprising, then, that there is religion and morality in the world. However, there is no saving benefit in this revelation.

“The gospel preached and the doctrine of salvation taught in most evangelical pulpits and lecterns, and believed in most evangelical pews, is not classical Arminianism but semi-Pelagianism if not outright Pelagianism.”

God is not arbitrarily choosing some and rejecting others. Rather, he is choosing some of his enemies for salvation and leaving the rest to the destiny that all of us would have chosen for ourselves.

The Calvinist says that everything that happens is not only foreknown but determined by God, yet in some cases through his own action (such as working all things together for our good) and in other cases through his permission (such as allowing creatures to commit a particular sin).

Mere foreknowledge without foreordination means that God does not have any larger purpose, that every natural disaster or human aggression is meaningless and random. If God foreknows these tragedies in advance but does not determine that he will allow them as part of a greater purpose that terminates in his glory and our good, then why pray?

In short, with conditional election you get foreknowledge without purpose: salvation is finally of us, not of the Lord.

If we can still love God freely in heaven even without the possibility of sinning, surely God could have decided to glorify every person at Calvary, without anyone being finally condemned.11

The important point is that Calvinism and Arminianism both affirm that God has chosen not to save everyone; the paths diverge over whether God’s electing grace or our free will is the deciding factor in salvation.

First, the Calvinist-Arminian debate reflects deeper differences concerning the God-world relationship, especially the relation between divine and human agency.

There is the triune God—and then there is everything and everyone else.

Hyper-Calvinism begins with the central dogma of divine liberty (what Pinnock calls “omnicausalism”), while Arminians begin with the central dogma of human liberty.

Second, God cannot will or do anything inconsistent with his whole nature.

Thus, God only permissively decrees evil in such a way that the same decree simultaneously determines the triumph of God’s just and gracious purposes in Jesus Christ.

Third, Reformed theology distinguishes between God’s positive determination to fulfill his purposes and his permission to allow sin.

Fourth, we must distinguish carefully the decree in eternity from its execution in history.

God’s decree not only determines that the act will occur (Ps. 33:11; Prov. 19:21; Isa. 46:10), but that it will be freely done by the agent.

Fifth, we must distinguish between natural and moral ability,

If God gives the elect the gift of faith, he is not to be reproached for leaving the rest to their own decision.

Finally, God’s sovereignty is not only demonstrated in narratives and described in doctrines; it is celebrated in praise.

We were not chosen in ourselves, but in Christ.

Calvinists believe that it is limited (or definite) in its extent, but unlimited in its nature or efficacy: Christ’s death actually saved the elect. Arminians believe that it is unlimited in its extent, but limited in its nature or effiacy: Christ’s death makes possible the salvation of everyone, but does not actually save any.

Briefly defined, this work is penal not chiefly as punishment for God’s offended dignity, but because God’s holy justice requires payment of the debt incurred against his covenant law. It is substitutionary because someone else, namely, the God-Man, Jesus Christ, bears the sanctions (curses) of this law in our place.

This may be true, but I prefer to think of the weight of sin as being due to the nature of the one offended. In that way, the focus is on the majesty and character of God. It's not just that we've offended Him, but that we think so little of violating His Law. So, maybe this statement is actually correct.

Christ’s saving work at Golgotha must be seen as the fulfillment of the elaborate ceremonies that turned on the imputation of guilt to a substitute who bears it away in its death. Jesus is “the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world” (John 1:29).

“Therefore the ritual Law had lost its significance as a necessary institution for salvation.”

It is the sinless substitute for the sinful people that is of central importance in the biblical doctrine of the atonement

In both cases it is God who gives up his Son to the cross and the Son who gives himself up in the Spirit.

Christ not only brings forgiveness, but fulfillment of God’s design for an obedient humanity.

Christ’s death is the ground not only of forgiveness and justification, but of sanctification and glorification as well.