Charge: Calvinism is like a Coin
Arminian Complaint: Calvinism is like a Coin
Calvinist, D. James Kennedy, writes: “Now, if some are elect, then it stands to reason that other people are the non-elect. That’s the aspect we find disturbing. It bothers us that some are predestined for salvation and some are not. It seems arbitrary and unfair.” (Solving Bible Mysteries, p.28)
Calvinist, James White, writes: “The wonder of God’s act of predestination is not that He justly condemns rebel sinners who love their sin and spit in His face on a daily basis. The wonder I that He actually quells the rebellion in the hearts of innumerable rebel sinners and solely from grace works the miracle of regeneration, removing their hearts of stone and giving them hearts of flesh.” (Debating Calvinism, p.19, emphasis mine)
First of all, God only removes the heart of stone for those who are new creatures in Christ. (2nd Corinthians 5:17) White’s “miracle of regeneration” is actually a Calvinistic teaching that unless a man is unilaterally, involuntarily and unconsciously regenerated against his depraved will, man cannot believe because he is spiritually dead. That is the basis behind the Calvinistic teaching that unless a man is made born again, he cannot believe. Arminians correct the Calvinist by pointing to the rights and privileges to what is alone afforded to Christians, and point out that the biblical solution for the spiritually dead sinner is a living Gospel (Hebrew 4:12; Romans 10:17) and an active Savior. (John 12:32; John 16:8; Luke 19:10; Revelation 3:20)
Nevertheless, the Calvinist’s sentiments appear honorable. The aforementioned quote solely attributes salvation to the secret workings of God. However, the Arminian challenges the Calvinist to consider the implications of their teachings, both biblically and logically. That’s why Calvinism is like a coin. On the one side of the coin, Calvinists say, “I was saved by grace. I had nothing to do with it. God wanted me to be saved, and He made it happen. If it was up to me, I would never have chosen Him. He had to unilaterally act to save me, because if it was up to my own free will, I never would have opened the door to Christ, and would have eventually perished. God graced me. In fact, no one can become a Christian unless God graces them in like manner. Those who perish, are not graced, as I was graced. Man doesn’t choose who gets saved. God chooses who gets saved.” Then an Arminian comes along and bursts the bubble of the Calvinist by pointing them to the other side of the coin, and then the red-faced Calvinist says, “Oh, I don’t believe that!” However, that’s the inevitable consequence of Calvinism, and any Calvinist who is willing to admit it, receives the label “hyper.” In fact, Calvinists frequently anathematize each other!
Calvinist, Charles Spurgeon, writes: “My soul revolts at the idea of a doctrine that lays the blood of man’s soul at God’s door. I cannot conceive how any human mind, at least any Christian mind, can hold any such blasphemy as that. I delight to preach this blessed truth—salvation of God, from first to last—the Alpha and the Omega; but when I come to preach damnation, I say, damnation of man, not of God; and if you perish, at your own hands must your blood be required.” (Jacob and Esau, preached January 16, 1859, emphasis mine)
That is referred to as Single Predestination, and Spurgeon cannot conceive of how can any Christian mind can conceive of Double Predestination. And then a Deterministic, Double Predestination Calvinist comes along and insists that Single Predestination defies logic and that its adherents are unwilling to be honest with themselves. And of, course, the Arminian sits back and says, “you’re both right, insomuch as the other is wrong.”
White continues: “He asks how a loving God could eternally choose to send anyone to hell. Such a question completely misses the point. The proper biblical question is: How could a holy God give of Himself in sacrificial love to rebel sinners so as to bring them into a completely undeserved relationship with Himself?” (Debating Calvinism, pp.268-269, emphasis mine)
Despite the Calvinist’s reservations, looking at the other side of the coin can yield benefits. For if the one side is false, so too is the other, just as one Calvinist admits:
Calvinist, George Whitefield, stated: “For, without doubt, the doctrine of election and reprobation must stand or fall together.” (A Letter from George Whitefield to the Rev. Mr. John Wesley, emphasis mine)
Calvinism carries baggage. The doctrine of Unconditional Election carries the baggage of Unconditional Reprobation. If God does not predestine anyone to hell, or decree that anyone should be created for the purpose of spending eternity in the Lake of Fire, the combined package of Calvinism implodes. For this reason, the Arminian does well to call Calvinists to defend whether the doctrine of Unconditional Reprobation is biblical or not. “Does God predestine anyone to Hell?” That is a question that Calvinists ought not relegate to being an “improper” question.
George Bryson explains: “You cannot have an unconditional election without an unconditional reprobation any more than you can have one side of a coin without the other also.” (The Dark Side of Calvinism, p.374)
