As with many of my articles, this one started out as a reply to a question on Facebook. The Reformed Sage asked:

If Reformed Theology is so scripturally rooted, why do you think so many struggle to accept its doctrines?

What are your thoughts?

While I know most of my readers are Calvinists, some are not. I think this is an important question to tackle. If you’re not a Calvinist, this article is for you, too. It’s not a sales pitch or a conversion attempt—it’s my perspective as someone who grew up Wesleyan Arminian and didn’t become a Calvinist until I was 30. My aim is to foster understanding and edify, wherever you stand.

As an aside: While Calvinism and Reformed Theology aren’t technically identical—a topic I discuss in Leaving Calvinism’s Parking Lot—Reformed Theology necessarily includes Calvinism, and the terms are used interchangeably in this article for simplicity.

Why So Many Struggle With Reformed Theology

Because we conflate what we experience with the means.

I know what it was like to make a decision to believe in Jesus Christ. I know I believed. I know that’s when I first became a Christian. But what I didn’t understand, what I wasn’t taught in church, and what I didn’t learn for three decades, is that my belief was only possible because God willed it, granted it, and worked it in me (John 6:44; Philippians 2:13; Ephesians 2:8–9, LSB).

You don’t need to understand the mechanism by which you believe—God’s only demand is that we believe (John 6:29, LSB). But the mechanism matters. It’s all grace. It’s all a gift. Some God gives more than others, according to His good pleasure (Romans 12:3; 1 Corinthians 4:7; Ephesians 1:5, LSB). I don’t know why God let me understand. I was prideful, boasting that if I really wanted to, I could turn away from God. I wouldn’t—but I could, if I wanted to. Such wicked thoughts for someone who calls Jesus Lord (Romans 9:15–16; John 15:16, LSB).

Yet in spite of myself, God put patient, gracious, and longsuffering people in my life. They answered my questions, challenged my presuppositions, and refused to give up on me, no matter how insufferable I was. God graciously beat down my pride, until I finally yielded: He is God, and I am not (Job 40:8–14; Romans 9:20–21, LSB). He chose me—I did not choose Him (John 15:16; Romans 8:29–30, LSB).

Doctrinal Blind Spots in American Churches

In much of American evangelicalism, certain doctrines aren’t even presented as doctrines—they’re simply the biblical view. When you’re never shown that alternative, historic views even exist, you’re not choosing your theology—you’re just inheriting it by default. That’s not conviction. That’s inertia.

For example, I didn’t even know Reformed Theology and Calvinism existed until I was 29 or 30 years old. I remember it was once briefly discussed in Wednesday night church in my early teens, but it was in the context of an historical belief nobody really believed anymore. I didn’t know there were other views of eschatology besides “pre-trib, mid-trib, and post-trib premillennialism” until even later! These are just a few examples within Protestantism—don’t get me started on historic Christian orthodoxy. So, when someone shows us there’s another way—one with centuries, even millennia, of faithful witness—we instinctively go on the defensive.

That reflex isn’t bad in itself. It’s wise to test new ideas (1 John 4:1; Acts 17:11, LSB). But it becomes a problem when we’re so defensive that we refuse to even think it through. Even with outright heresy, we should at least follow it to its logical conclusion—understand it as its adherents do—before we judge (Proverbs 18:13, LSB). But we don’t do that. Not for Calvinists, not for Muslims, not for Catholics. Instead, we caricature what others believe, plug our ears, and shout “la-la-la-la!” like children.

Understanding Your Opponent

This willful ignorance doesn’t just make us poor apologists—it harms the gospel. Scripture shows Jesus and the apostles reasoning with the Jews in the synagogues (Jesus: Luke 4:16–30; Mark 1:21; Mark 6:2; John 18:20. Apostles: Acts 17:2–3; Acts 18:4, LSB), and Paul engaging the Athenians on Mars Hill. There, he even quotes pagan philosophers to reach them with the truth:

“for in Him we live and move and exist, as even some of your own poets have said, ‘For we also are His offspring.’” —Acts 17:28, LSB

Here, Paul references Epimenides of Crete (“in Him we live and move and exist”) and Aratus or Cleanthes (“For we also are His offspring”).

Paul does this elsewhere as well:

• In 1 Corinthians 15:33, he writes:“Do not be deceived: ‘Bad company corrupts good morals.’” This is a quotation from the Greek poet Menander.

• In Titus 1:12, he says:“One of them, a prophet of their own, said, ‘Cretans are always liars, evil beasts, lazy gluttons.’” This cites Epimenides of Crete—a pagan poet.

They didn’t fear honest engagement—they confronted error at the point of disagreement and refused to straw man their opponents (1 Peter 3:15, LSB). This is the biblical pattern: listen, engage, and reason from the Scriptures—even when the disagreement runs deep.

This is a failure still rampant in American Christianity—and even among those of us in the Reformed camp. If our theology is as rooted in Scripture as we claim, we should have nothing to fear from honest, rigorous engagement. We should be the first to listen, to think deeply, and to reason from the Scriptures, not just recite slogans (Acts 17:11; 2 Timothy 2:15, LSB).

If You Value My Thoughts In One Area…

The turning point for me in understanding Reformed Theology came when I realized all of the pastors and podcasts I was listening to were by Calvinists: James White, Apologia Radio, R.C. Sproul, John Piper, and more. I loved how faithful they were in handling Scripture in other areas. I had grown tired with how flippant other apologists and preachers were handling God's word. I valued the faithful approach to social issues, politics, and every other area of doctrine these Calvinists were. But this Calvinism? Yuck. I used to skip every episode or section when they breached the topic.

At some point, I realized what I was doing. I was telling them what their beliefs meant. I told them what the conclusion was. I valued how they came to the conclusions on everything else, but when it came to Calvinism, I wouldn’t even listen. I was too busy telling them why they were wrong.

To be clear, I didn’t surrender the debate. I realized, I was being unfair in how I was debating the position. If I respected them in all those other areas, and they were faithful and smart men of God, then if they came to a different conclusion on Calvinism than me, I needed to at the very least, understand why and how they came to those conclusions. That’s when I actually began to understand their arguments and why they believe the way they believe.

If you value my opinion on social issues, on theology, if you believe I’m a faithful man of God, then all I ask is you hear me out on this issue as well. Not to believe me, but to just listen without letting your own assumptions interject. This is the same strategy I use when addressing Muslims, when addressing Mormons, and Atheists. I haven’t become a Muslim, a Mormon, or an Atheist—but I have become a Calvinist.

If Scripture is your standard, don’t fear following the argument wherever it leads. Listen, weigh, and ask if what you’ve inherited truly fits what God’s word teaches.

Conclusion

We have nothing apart from the grace of God. None of us deserves salvation—we all deserve hell. The salvation of God is not a reward earned, but a gift given freely by God’s will, for His own purposes (Eph 1:19; 2:1–9). We have faith only because the Holy Spirit makes our dead hearts alive in Christ. Only then are we able to seek God where we once despised Him (Rom 3:10–18).

For those of us who are Reformed, it’s essential that we show grace and patience—even to the most obstinate. And for those who are not Calvinists, not Reformed, please be patient with us; we too are far from perfected. We all struggle with pride, arrogance, and frustration. But what matters is that Christ is Lord and Savior, who died for us and calls us to love one another because He first loved us. That must be our common ground.

Compatibilism

This is often called compatibilism: God's sovereign rule and human responsibility are both fully true. Our choices are real, but God's purposes are never frustrated. We see this clearly in Genesis 50:20—Joseph tells his brothers, "You meant evil against me, but God meant it for good." Their actions were genuinely sinful, yet at the same time, God sovereignly intended them for His righteous purpose.

Similarly, Acts 4:27–28 shows that Herod, Pontius Pilate, the Gentiles, and Israel all did "whatever Your hand and Your purpose predestined to occur." They freely sinned, yet everything unfolded exactly according to God’s sovereign plan.

Sovereign Over All, Good and Evil

The Bible plainly teaches: God ordains evil without being evil. He is the sovereign Author of history, but not the actor of sin. Creatures sin freely and bear full responsibility. God remains holy, just, and blameless.

“The One forming light and creating darkness, producing peace and creating calamity; I am Yahweh who does all these.” — Isaiah 45:7

“Yahweh has made everything for its own purpose, even the wicked for the day of evil.” — Proverbs 16:4

We see this truth throughout Scripture.

• In Job 1–2, Satan himself must appear before God to receive permission to afflict Job and cannot act beyond the limits God sets.

• In 1 Samuel 16:14, God sends a tormenting spirit upon Saul as an act of judgment.

• In Revelation, the tribulation is not the triumph of evil forces acting independently, but the unfolding of events under the sovereign direction of the Lamb who opens the seals (Revelation 5–6).

• God ordains both the persecution and the divine protection of His church, as seen in Revelation 12, where the woman representing the faithful flees into the wilderness to the place prepared for her.

Regardless of whether one holds a premillennial, amillennial, or postmillennial view, God's sovereign rule over these events is unmistakable. He is not reacting to evil; He is meticulously ordaining it for His purposes.

And the most grievous sin, the greatest injustice of all time: the murder of the blameless Son of God on the cross—God ordained. The Cross was not a "plan b", nor did God cobble together a plan as events transpired. Rather, God intended from before the beginning (Revelation 13:8) for Judas, Pilate, the Jews, and the Gentiles to sin (Acts 2:23; Acts 4:27–28 and seek Christ's death.

27 For truly in this city there were gathered together against Your holy Servant Jesus, whom You anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, along with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, 28 to do whatever Your hand and Your purpose predestined to occur.

Acts 4:27–28

People willed to sin. God willed to accomplish His purpose. God remains holy, blameless, and good.

What about free will?

When it comes to free will, Scripture teaches that we act freely according to our nature. Apart from Christ, we are "children of wrath" (Ephesians 2:3), freely choosing rebellion. That's why salvation is a work of God's grace from beginning to end. In John 6, Jesus makes this point directly: faith itself is the "work of God" (John 6:29), not something we produce from a neutral or willing heart. He says, "No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him" (John 6:44).

Coram Deo

Before the Face of God

We desperately need God’s grace—not just to forgive us, but even to believe. To live coram Deo is to recognize that every moment, every decision, and every breath occurs before the face of God. It means humbly submitting to His sovereign rule, trusting in His perfect wisdom, and resting in His unshakable promises—even when we cannot comprehend the full depths of His plan.

Subscribe now

My introduction to Calvinism was very serene. However, I have come to find that this is not the case for many people. The Internet allows loud voices to project a presence disproportionate to their actual influence. This is especially true for a group called "Hyper Calvinists." Hyper Calvinists rarely see themselves as such; they view themselves not only as the only real Calvinists but also as the only real Christians.

Hyper Calvinism is a set of errant beliefs that contradict Scripture. Its relation to Calvinism is tangential, rooted in an imbalance of foundational Christian doctrines, including evangelism and God's relation to the existence of evil. In discussions about Calvinism, the term "Hyper-Calvinism" often arises with varying definitions. To clarify, Hyper-Calvinism represents a set of beliefs that diverge significantly from traditional Calvinist doctrine. These beliefs are deeply rooted in an extreme form of supralapsarianism, leading to several theological errors and are considered heretical by orthodox Christian standards.

Supralapsarianism and Infralapsarianism

Supralapsarianism is a theological perspective concerning the logical order of God's decrees in relation to the fall of man (lapsus). Supralapsarians hold that God's decree to elect some to salvation and others to reprobation occurred logically prior to His decree to allow the fall. This view emphasizes God's sovereign choice in election before considering humanity's fallen state.

Infralapsarianism, on the other hand, posits that God's decree to elect some and pass over others logically follows His decree to permit the fall. This view maintains that the fall was part of God's plan but not the primary focus in His decree of election and reprobation.

Traditional Calvinism includes both infralapsarianism and supralapsarianism but maintains a balance that avoids extreme interpretations. Calvinists debate these perspectives while holding to the overarching doctrines of God's sovereignty and grace.

Hyper-Calvinism, however, takes supralapsarianism to an extreme, leading to beliefs inconsistent with Calvinism proper and orthodox Christian doctrine. This extreme view results in several theological errors, such as denying the need for evangelism and asserting that assurance of election must precede faith and repentance. These positions distort the balance and harmony found within traditional Calvinist doctrine.

Beliefs & Errors of Hyper-Calvinism

Hyper-Calvinists do not all hold the same beliefs. They may hold to some or all of the following beliefs. For example, in my experiences, only specific cults hold to the view of “racial election.”

Notably, all of these beliefs at first glance seem random and unconnected. This is why it was important to introduce the concept of Hyper Supralapsarianism. Each of these beliefs is a result of a Hyper Supralapsarianist understanding of God’s decree:

1. God as the Author of Sin: Hyper-Calvinists may assert that God is the first cause and author of sin and evil, an extreme interpretation of God's sovereignty that traditional Calvinism rejects. Scripture states, "Let no one say when he is tempted, 'I am being tempted by God,' for God cannot be tempted with evil, and he himself tempts no one" (James 1:13).

2. Denial of Human Will: This view holds that men have no will of their own and that secondary causes are of no effect, contradicting the Calvinist balance of divine sovereignty and human responsibility. Joseph's exchange with his brothers illustrates the compatibility of divine sovereignty and human responsibility: "As for you, you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good" (Genesis 50:20).

3. Rejection of Evangelism: Hyper-Calvinists often believe it is wrong to evangelize, undermining the Great Commission and the universal call to repentance. Jesus commands, "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations" (Matthew 28:19).

4. Assurance Before Faith: They may claim that assurance of election must be sought prior to repentance and faith, contrary to the Calvinist understanding of the order of salvation. Scripture teaches that faith comes first: "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved" (Acts 16:31).

5. Belief in Predestination Alone: Some equate saving faith with belief in the doctrine of predestination, neglecting the broader scope of faith in Christ. Scripture emphasizes faith in Christ: "For by grace you have been saved through faith" (Ephesians 2:8).

6. Neo-Gnostic Calvinism: An extreme view that only Calvinists are true Christians, disregarding the diverse expressions of genuine Christian faith. Scripture teaches that the gospel is for all who believe: "For 'everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved'" (Romans 10:13).

7. Racial Election: A dangerous belief that God has chosen some races of men and rejected others, which is antithetical to the gospel. This view is a minority position among Hyper-Calvinists. Scripture proclaims the universality of the gospel: "There is neither Jew nor Greek...for you are all one in Christ Jesus" (Galatians 3:28).

The Error of Imbalance

The primary error in Hyper-Calvinism is its imbalance and extremity. By overemphasizing certain aspects of God’s sovereignty and predestination, it distorts the biblical portrayal of God's character and the nature of His decrees. Doctrinal errors often arise from such imbalances, leading to practical and theological consequences that contradict Scripture.

Be of sober spirit, be watchful. Your adversary, the devil, prowls around like a roaring lion, seeking someone to devour. (1 Peter 5:8 LSB)

Share

Conclusion

Hyper-Calvinism, or Hyper Supralapsarianism, is a departure from orthodox Christian belief and is rightly considered heretical. It diverges from Calvinism proper by taking key doctrines, such as God's sovereignty and predestination, to an extreme that denies human responsibility and evangelism. While Calvinism maintains a balanced biblical understanding of God's sovereignty in salvation, Hyper-Calvinism distorts essential aspects of God's character and rejects direct commands from God, such as the call to repent and evangelize, making it a significant deviation from biblical Christianity.

It is crucial for Christians to distinguish between historical Calvinism, which maintains a balance of divine sovereignty and human responsibility, and Hyper-Calvinism, which leads to theological and practical errors. Understanding and adhering to biblical teaching helps avoid such extremes, promoting a balanced and faithful expression of Christian doctrine.

May 30, 2024 - I made a minor revision to the conclusion to further clarify it’s deviation from Calvinism.

Leave a comment

My Introduction

A friend recently shared a letter entitled, "Why I Left Reformed Theology.” Rather than just a critique, I wanted to use the opportunity to challenge common misconceptions about Reformed Theology and Calvinism. The brother who wrote it, who will remain anonymous, doesn’t seem to understand either, let alone the differences between the two. One can’t leave that which one hasn’t arrived to. Regardless of your doctrinal commitments, my hope is that you’ll find this to be both a respectful critique, and, be led to a more appreciative understanding of biblical Calvinism.

I’m focusing exclusively on his introduction, which I feel represents his overall position accurately, however, I suggest reading the entirety on my friend Jennifer’s Facebook. I also recommend subscribing to Jennifer’s Substack — she writes amazing articles on early church history, among other topics.

The Full text of His Introduction

It's no secret that at one time in my ministry, I started leaning towards Reformed Theology. I never followed John Calvin or desired to be called a Calvinist. I honestly always struggled with some of the doctrine of the reformers but I was drawn to Calvinistic teaching because it made much of God's Sovereignty. Great heroes like Spurgeon, Whitfield and Owen leaned that way. Some of my close friends leaned that way as well. Here's the thing, Calvinist are great recruiters. One pastor even had me convinced that I had believed their doctrine all a long. Calvinism is contagious and appeals to the intellect. It will catch you if you're not careful.

Defining Terms

To avoid confusion, let’s define some terms.

• Calvinism: Often refers to Reformed Soteriology, the theological study of salvation.

• Doctrines of Grace: Core doctrines represented by the acrostic TULIP which are central to Calvinism, an often synonymous with it.

• Reformed Theology: A broader term encompassing more than soteriology.

It’s not uncommon to refer to all Reformed Christians as “Calvinists,” but it is inaccurate to refer to all Calvinists as Reformed. All Reformed Christians are Calvinists, but not all Calvinists are Reformed. Our Brother confuses this distinction from the start.

His “Departure” Letter

Why I left Reformed Theology

Anytime someone begins a letter with “Why I Left (Belief.)”, I’m immediately skeptical. Yes, beliefs change, but legitimate transitions to new beliefs are usually framed in reference to the positives of the new belief and not the gripes of the old belief. For example, I didn’t leave Arminianism for Calvinism, I became a Calvinist. My focus is on the truth I now hold, not my past confusion. I don’t resent the first 23 years of my Christian walk. It is written, “The footsteps of a man are established by Yahweh, and He delights in his way.” (Psalm 37:23)

Titling the letter “Why I Left Reformed Theology,” feels like an attempt to lend credibility by establishing himself as former insider, now whistleblower. As he will demonstrate, a dalliance with the allure of new beliefs doesn’t make one an authoritative critic of those beliefs.

More of a Head Tilt Towards

I started leaning towards Reformed Theology…never…desired to be called a Calvinist….I honestly always struggled with some of the doctrine of the reformers but I was drawn to Calvinistic teaching

To a point, I understand. I prefer “Reformed” over “Calvinist,” the former a closer reflection of my broader theological convictions. Likewise, I don’t expect someone to adopt all of the theological positions of the Reformers. As a point of reference, I know John Calvin would likely dismiss me as a heretic—put that in your pipe and smoke it.

Yet, this leaves us with a quandary. What in Reformed Theology was he attracted to? He notes he likes “Reformed Theology making much of God’s sovereignty” Yet, belief of God’s sovereignty is not exclusively Reformed, and is only Reformed when defined by Reformed doctrines. Later in the letter, he objects about the idea of God hating sinners and predestining them to hell—so much for “making much of God’s sovereignty.”—which is also not what Reformed Christians believe (the hell thing, we totally believe God is sovereign.)

Reformed theology is systematic, reflecting the Scriptural revelation God’s actions are logically connected. It’s difficult to grasp what he left other than a fleeting head tilt towards Reformed Theology. Again, as a pastor, active in ministry during this time, why the confusion?

Nobody Follows John Calvin — Stop It!

I never followed John Calvin

As no Lutheran follows Martin Luther; Wesleyans, John Wesley; or Mennonite, Menno Simmons—Neither do Calvinists follow John Calvin! This is a straw man repeated ad nauseum by anti-Calvinists, and really makes me question his intentions! Perpetuating this slander demonstrates either ignorance of the beliefs he’s “leaving behind,” wanton disregard for the truth—or both. Most unbelievable, from a pastor claiming to have attended a Reformed Baptist church!

Historical Context of Calvinism

If my insistence wasn’t enough to dissuade you, nobody actually follows Calvin, let’s take a look at some of the history behind Calvinism, its name, and how it developed.

• "Calvinism" was initially a pejorative coined by Lutherans, Calvin hated the term, it’s not how he wanted his life’s work to be remembered.

• John Calvin's seminal work, The Institutes of the Christian Religion, was foundational in spreading Reformed Protestantism across Europe.

• As Calvinism spread it adapted to new contexts, echoing earlier teachings known as “Augustinianism” after St. Augustine of Hippo, and other early church writers.

• Calvinism isn't a novelty but an expression of Scripture, so much so that Charles Spurgeon proclaimed, “Calvinism is the gospel, and nothing else.”

The core of Calvinism and the Reformation was the principle of sola scriptura, ensuring church doctrine remained aligned with God’s word as the sole infallible rule of faith, especially in the face of Roman Catholicism’s adherence to extra-biblical traditions. The Reformers aimed to rectify deviations from Scriptural truth, with the Bible as their primary authority amidst persecution from Rome.

Our Brother's limited grasp of Calvinism, confined to a superficial understanding of God’s sovereignty and predestination, misses the theological and historical depth of Reformed Theology. Understanding Calvinism in its historical and theological context is crucial to engage in informed critique and discussion. Our Brother doesn’t seem to have either.

Great Because of Reformed Theology

Great heroes like Spurgeon, Whitfield and Owen leaned that way.

Charles Spurgeon, George Whitfield, and John Owen would be aghast at their portrayal as anything less than dyed-in-the-wool Calvinist — an identification for which they faced criticism and persecution. Their theological richness came from their Reformed commitments, not in spite of them.

You Keep Using This Phrase, “Leaned”

Some of my close friends leaned that way as well.

Again, what does this even mean?

Here's the thing, Calvinists are great recruiters.

We are? That’s new!

Open To Interpretation

One pastor even had me convinced that I had believed their doctrine all along.

As we’re not privileged to all the details, it’s hard to make any clear judgments. While I’d like to be as charitable as possible to both parties, our Brother doesn’t seem to know what he believed.

Anti-Intellectualism is Anti-Christian

My Analysis

Calvinism is contagious and appeals to the intellect. It will catch you if you're not careful.

I believe our Brother was initially lured by the intellectual nature of Calvinism (more on this shortly.) He thought Calvinism could feed the intellectual thirst the experience-driven, anti-intellectual nature “Big Eva” leaves Christians thirsting for. Abandoning all reason and intellectual integrity in pursuit of “spiritual” experiences is contradictory to a pursuit of Christ, of “whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge.” (Colossians 2:3)

Reading a little further beyond the introduction into his letter, he writes:

There was no liberty to truly worship. No testimonials. No "amen's". No hands raised to praise the King. The hymns were dry and the preaching was monotone. It was dead. No invitation was given. No tears were shed. I didn't even feel like I had been in church.

The Church’s pursuit of “experiences” and “feelings” in place of sound doctrine has reaped moral and spiritual decay. Feelings are poor, fickle substitutes for God’s word. Man cannot live on bread alone (Matthew 4:4)—even less tears and altar calls. Experiences may give the illusion of holiness—ironically Evangelicalism shares this commonality with Rome and the East—but are counterfeit to faithful worship as God has prescribed (see Regulative Principle of Worship.)

Systematic vs. Compartmentalized

Calvinism’s systematic theology, anchored in the Western tradition of reasoned thought, naturally appeals to the intellect. The Reformed Tradition thrives on a unified consistency between doctrines—embracing Tota Scriptura (or the Totality of Scripture.) That is, all of Scripture is interconnected and relevant, as the Psalmist writes, “The sum of your Word is truth.” (Psalm 119:160) This contrasts with Evangelicalism which tends to compartmentalize each doctrine, each existing within a vacuum.

Did you know the Doctrine of the Trinity is intimately connected to God’s plan of salvation? Or that God’s act of creation is fundamentally tied to the Great Commission? The Bible is vast, and its doctrinal richness expansive! Yet, many churches rarely scratch the surface! Shallow pastors with shallow teaching produces shallow Christians.

“Always Be Nice:” The 11th Commandment

Subsequently, Christians who have been a part of “feel-good” Christianity have made an ad hoc 11th Commandment of “Always Be Nice.” They avoid confrontation over doctrinal truths in favor of “unity and peace.” While, unity is important (see Ephesians 4:11-13 LSB), unity mustn’t come at the expense of the truth.

Dangers of Being Too Fierce

While there is significant support to the argument a passionate defense of the faith should come over pacifistic appeasement, a Calvinist can take this too far and just be mean. We are imperfect humans, and can forget the fact our knowledge of the truth has come by way of God’s grace, not intellectual superiority. (1 Corinthians 1-2)

Summary

Lack of Confidence

With what we’ve examined so far, it seems to me Our Brother was seeking an experience and didn’t find it. Nothing in his letter about “Why I Left Reformed Theology” lends confidence to an understanding of what he was drawn to or departed from. It’s as if he arrived in the parking lot, didn’t read the pamphlet, came in attracted by the lights, and left disappointed after his vision didn’t comport with the rich doctrinal and historical context of Reformed Theology.

Serious Doctrine, Serious Consideration

Delving into the profound truths of God isn’t the proper realm of whimsical exploration. Changes to doctrinal stances should always be met with sober examination of the truth. Paul cautions against being “children, tossed here and there by waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, by craftiness in deceitful scheming.” (Ephesians 4:14 LSB) Paul follows this with an exhortation on the importance of grounding our growth in Christ—Truth incarnate.

Semper Reformanda: A Balanced Pursuit

Historical Reflection:

The historical Reformation was a profound movement that sought not the overthrow of Christ’s church, but its restoration to biblical fidelity and obedience to true worship of God. This era marked a significant return to Scriptural truths, laying down a robust theological framework that continues to guide Reformed Theology. It's a vivid demonstration of the church's ability to self-correct and continue growing in understanding, embodying the phrase Semper Reformanda, or "always reforming."

My Personal Journey:

In my own transition from Arminianism to Calvinism, it wasn’t a departure from my old beliefs, but a clarification of what I believed. Confusion was clarified. Truth was better understood. Recently, I reached out to a pastor of the church I was saved at when I was seven. Despite now being across certain theological divides, he was pleased to hear from me, and I him. He is a dear brother, nay, father, and I was pleased he responded. I look back with fondness, even if I would never return.

Core Principles of Biblical Calvinism:

Biblical Calvinism invites believers into a rich tapestry of theological understanding. It emphasizes the sovereignty of God, the total depravity of man, unconditional election, limited atonement, irresistible grace, and the perseverance of the saints, often encapsulated in the acronym TULIP. These principles, rooted in Scripture, offer a coherent and systematic understanding of God's redemptive plan, providing a solid ground for faith and practice.

Analyzing Our Brother’s Journey:

Our Brother’s ease in departing from Reformed Theology suggests great confusion. It was a consideration and not a commitment—one can’t leave what one has never truly embraced.

Conclusion

In conclusion, Christians across diverse doctrinal stances have glorified God and led others to Him. Our primary aim should be to honor God through faithful worship and a truthful understanding of Him.

If you’ve found yourself in the parking lot of Reformed Theology, I hope this article encourages you to come inside. There's a richness in biblical Calvinism worth examining.

Engaging deeply with the principles of biblical Calvinism allows believers to continue the tradition of Semper Reformanda—always reforming and growing in understanding of God's truth.

P.S. to My Brother

Dear Brother, if you run across this article, understand: I love you, pray for you, and mean this article out of good intentions and no disrespect towards you. Thank you the opportunity to share what I believe, and pardon me if I misrepresented you.

If salvation can be lost, then why is one "saved" and not "might be saved"? To say one is "saved" implies they are now safe from the danger which once would destroy them. If salvation can be lost, it's not salvation.

While some may argue there are passages in the Bible which teach salvation is indeed conditional (such as Hebrews 10:26-31), these must be viewed in context. Didactic teachings on the issue of the security of our salvation, that is teachings which are specifically addressing and teaching on the subject, are clear: our salvation is from, by, and through the work of God alone. Henceforth, I will demonstrate it such.

“My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me; and I give eternal life to them, and they will never perish—ever; and no one will snatch them out of My hand.

John 10:27-28 LSB

"No one" includes "you" if you are truly His sheep. Christ's effectiveness and ability as Savior is not dependent on you or your abilities or in abilities, but on Christ and His ability to save.

Therefore He is able also to save forever those who draw near to God through Him, since He always lives to make intercession for them.

Hebrews 7:25 LSB

The inclination is to read this passage and rest the onus of "drawing near to God" on our capacity, our individual ability to do this. Yet, Christ taught differently.

Jesus answered and said to them, “This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He has sent.”

“All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will never cast out.

“Now this is the will of Him who sent Me, that of all that He has given Me I lose nothing, but raise it up on the last day.

“No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up on the last day.

John 6:29, 37, 39, 44 LSB

We draw near to God, not by our own strength or ability, but by the Father giving us to the Son, having been chosen before the world began according to the counsel of His good will. (Ephesians 1:11)

"Eternal Security and the Perseverance of the Saints" is not "Once Saved Always Saved"

Nothing I write is meant to separate the Christian from their responsibility to obey Christ. The Bible is clear, as Christ said,

“If you keep My commandments, you will abide in My love; just as I have kept My Father’s commandments and abide in His love.

John 15:10 LSB

And, Paul wrote,

What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin so that grace may increase? May it never be! How shall we who died to sin still live in it?

Romans 6:1-2 LSB

For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand so that we would walk in them.

Ephesians 2:10 LSB

Once Saved, Always Saved suggests someone can just say a prayer and continue on as if nothing happened. Yet, we know from Scripture a person who has had a personal encounter with the grace of Almighty God is not able to continue on as if nothing happened.

What use is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but he has no works? Can that faith save him Even so faith, if it has no works, is dead by itself.

James 2:14,17 LSB

Often used to affirm the idea our salvation must be earned, James is not contradicting Paul.

For just as the body without the spirit is dead, so also faith without works is dead.

James 2:26 LSB

While this is an interesting topic to dive into, the point of this article is the eternal security of the Christian believer. So, let this just be a cursory response and not meant to answer any and all objections on the matter.

The crux of the matter — Christ saves

Our salvation isn't earned or kept by our own ability, but by Christ who is able to faithfully keep us in Him. Every good thing we do is Christ living in us. It is the power of God working sanctifying and working out itself in us, wretched sinners that we are if not for Christ's redemptive work.

We are eternally secure in our faith not because we are able to keep ourselves saved, but because Christ is a perfect, powerful, and effective Savior who never fails to save all whom He intends to save.

For I am confident of this very thing, that He who began a good work in you will perfect it until the day of Christ Jesus.

Philippians 1:6 LSB

Featured Image: Medieval Castle Tower colorized by CC BY-NC-SA 4.0