Search this blog

alcornrandy-47bb17880e497-bigOver the holidays, I read Randy Alcorn’s newest book, hand in Hand: The Beauty of God’s Sovereignty and Meaningful Human Choice. Randy is a writer with a unique ability to delve into some of the most perplexing issues of life and theology and emerge with accessible, while almost encyclopedic explanations for his readers.

  • If God Is Good probes the depths of God’s goodness and human suffering.
  • Heaven answers more questions than you would know to ask.
  • Randy has also seen success at writing fiction, which is why I was grateful for his kind endorsement of my own foray into fiction with Clear Winter Nights.

If you’re looking for a concise, charitable exploration of the Calvinism and Arminianism discussions, you can’t go wrong with hand in HandRandy is at his best here, and I’ve invited him to the blog today and tomorrow to discuss the issues addressed in his book.

Trevin Wax: You use the historic terms “Calvinist” and “Arminian” while recognizing that these labels can obscure whenever they are used to conclude that “all believe A” or “none believe B.” You also warn against taking the other side’s terms and applying them to our definitions. How do our labels and terms frustrate and hinder meaningful conversation on these issues?

Randy Alcorn: My wife Nanci and I learned years ago that we got into trouble by attaching our own meanings to the other’s words. One of us would reason, “If I said that, what I would mean is this.” Then we’d take each other’s words to their logical conclusion (according to our own logic, not the other’s). Only when we realized this did we learn to understand and appreciate each other.

For example, an Arminian says, “People have the freedom to choose as they wish.” A Calvinist responds, “Oh, so you don’t believe people have sin natures or that God is sovereign?” Shocked, the Arminian responds, “What? I believe in both!” The Calvinist insists, “No, you don’t,” because he doesn’t understand that what to him are logical conclusions to the Arminian’s statement are not logical conclusions to the Arminian!

Similarly the Arminian hears the Calvinist say, “God elects people to salvation and empowers them to believe.” The Arminian concludes, “Then you don’t believe people have the ability to make choices; you think they’re robots, and there’s no point in prayer, evangelism and missions.” In his mind, all these are perfectly logical conclusions to the Calvinist’s statement. But they are not what the Calvinist believes! That’s why we need to ask a person what they believe and listen to their answer, asking clarifying questions, instead of reducing them to a theological stereotype.

Both Calvinists and Arminians say “God is sovereign,” but mean different things by sovereign. The same goes for the term “free will.” When Calvinists and Arminians use these terms in conversation without understanding what it means to the other person, miscommunication is inevitable. Then tensions rise, and soon one or both are frustrated and defensive.

It’s fine to label ourselves, but I think it’s wise and kind to avoid labeling others. No one likes being put in a box. (I am always amazed to hear people tell me what I really believe!) When it comes to terminology, especially in conversations regarding God’s sovereignty and meaningful human choice, I’d recommend using our definition or understanding of terms in place of the terms themselves until we know we’re on the same page. It may take longer to explain, but we’ll know what we’re really talking about.

Trevin Wax: Like you, I am not 100% on either the Calvinist or Arminian scale, which has prompted some friends from both sides to try to better inform or persuade me! You write that “all positions have strengths and weaknesses; be sure you know the strengths of others and the weaknesses of your own.” That’s a good word, and you seek to point out strengths and weaknesses in a manner that is fair and charitable. I wonder, though, if those who are fervently committed to one side would agree that the other side has strengths or that theirs has weaknesses. Is this a problem, or is this to be expected when someone is deeply convinced regarding their position? 

Randy Alcorn: If we imagine our position on sovereignty and free will is the only one without problems, we’re kidding ourselves, and need a dose of humility. All positions have snags, whether biblical, logical or practical inconsistencies. A position can be entirely true, but there will always be arguments against it, and if we don’t understand those arguments, or if we dismiss them as if only a stupid person could believe them, we can’t effectively communicate. God deliver us from theological arrogance!

I think it’s a mistake for anyone to attach too much importance to being consistent with our own system. I was an Arminian, as a young Christian in an Arminian church, and after years of studying Scripture I gradually changed my view on election and predestination. But had I allowed my theological system to hold sway, I wouldn’t have changed my views, but would have stayed logically consistent, and that would have been a mistake.

But we Calvinists can do the same thing. We end up being accomplished logicians rather than pure biblicists. If we’re attempting to be card-carrying Calvinists, trying to keep in step with our theological comrades, our real authority is our theological system, or our logic, not the Bible. (If we depend too much on logic, we would never believe many biblical doctrines, including the Trinity—the mathematics don’t add up, do they?)

I recommend being willing to have “leaks” and inconsistencies in your theological system, while remaining unwilling to do violence to Scripture to make it fit your system. When we were translating every verse of the Greek New Testament over the course of three years, my Greek prof would remind us to grapple with the text before us, and let it speak for itself rather than seeing it through the lens of doctrines we’d been taught in our Bible and theology classes. I can still hear him saying, “Better to be at home with your Bible and not your theology, than to be at home with your theology and not your Bible.” When there’s a conflict between the two we need to alter our theology, and I’ve done that considerably over the years.

This is why I think we need to read good books by Bible-believers who argue against our positions. Inevitably, the authors will cite passages I tend to ignore. I reflect on those passages. I try to allow God’s Word to surprise me and change my mind and modify my positions. I like to learn. If I come to God’s Word unguarded, with my shields down, God uses it to grab me, taking me where he wants me to go. If the Bible never changes your mind because you’ve already got everything figured out, you’re missing the joy of discovery.

Trevin Wax: One of the things I appreciated about your book is your insistence that we should let the Bible speak, and we shouldn’t be afraid to sound like the Bible when we talk. Case in point: some argue against saying “God allows” because they think “God causes” is more biblical and consistent with his sovereignty. But since Scripture uses the more passive “allow,” permit,” or “let” along with the active “cause” and “make,” why shouldn’t we? Should we sound more “calvinist” or “arminian” depending on the passage of Scripture we are explaining?

Randy Alcorn: An Arminian can carefully avoid the predestination and election passages, or so redefine the word meanings that they nullify those doctrines. On the other hand, a Calvinist can skip or gloss over where Jesus weeps over Jerusalem and says, “How often would [Greek thelo] I have gathered your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you would [thelo] not!” (Matthew 23:37). Jesus uses the same word for what he willed as for what fallen creatures willed. And whose will was realized? That of his fallen creatures.

Yes, this isn’t the only text, and many other texts affirm God’s sovereign purposes won’t be thwarted. But I would say to an Arminian, “if this text were the only one on the subject I would have to change my theology—and it certainly serves as a balance to it.” This gives us much more credibility when we call upon them to be faithful in interpreting other texts that are more deterministic in their portrayal of God’s sovereignty.

The Bible features a staggering breadth and depth of truth that selective proof-texting can never reflect.

Trevin, regarding your mention of the language of permission, I’ve heard Calvinists argue against saying “God allows” because they think “God causes” is more biblical and consistent with his sovereignty.

But what does the Bible say? Of course, there are “God determines” passages, such as Romans 9:18, but there are also the “God allows” passages. For instance, an ax head flies from its handle and kills someone. So what does God say? “If [the man] does not do it intentionally, but God lets it happen, he is to flee to a place I will designate” (Exodus 21:13, ESV). It doesn’t say God caused the accident but rather “lets it happen.” The term “let” or “allow” or “permit” are all good translations. Or, take Mark 5:12-13, where demons beg Jesus to send them into a herd of pigs and Jesus “gave them permission.” God said of disobedient people, “I let them become defiled” (Ezekiel 20:26).

Similarly, Arminians should accept the language of determinism whenever Scripture uses it. God told Abimelech, “I have kept you from sinning against me” (Genesis 20:6). When casting out demons, Jesus “would not allow them to speak” (Luke 4:41).

I like what you say, Trevin, about being willing to sound more Calvinist or Arminian depending on the passage of Scripture we’re explaining. Let’s not posture ourselves and worry about whether we sound Calvinistic or Arminian, but focus on whether we are being biblical. Since Scripture uses the indirect “allow,” “permit,” or “let” along with the direct “cause” and “make,” I think we should do the same. Don’t we need both kinds of words to get the full biblical picture?


Tomorrow, Randy will be back on the blog to discuss meaningful human choice, the rise of Molinism, and his hope for the church.

View Comments


11 thoughts on “Randy Alcorn on Calvinists, Arminians, and Everything In Between”

  1. Francesco Abortivi says:

    I really appreciate the idea that we should humbly accept that both positions have weaknesses and that we should confront our ideas with the Bible rather than our theology.
    I’m not a Calvinist, and I don’t consider myself an Arminian, also I happily collaborate with both “worlds”.
    My question is, do I have to take parts or can I continue to be a Christian that others are trying to convince one way or the other? The underlying question is: isn’t this subject wrongly become a parallel faith for some?

  2. lucy says:

    thank you.- I agree

  3. Shane says:

    So, how does he interpret Romans 9?

  4. Kevin says:

    We should all be seeking to be more BIBLICAL than we are CALVINIST or ARMENIAN. For indeed, the Bible informs both of these theological views.

    Now, that being said, I don’t think that means that truth is simply “in the middle” of these two theological views. In the end, one will be MORE(not totally) right than the other, because we do believe that objective TRUTH exists.
    So I would encourage fellow believers NOT to simply avoid the controversy altogether and relegate themselves to the mushy, gray, unbiblical “middle.” For these hotly debated doctrinal issues are not debated because they’re trivial, but rather because they are of vital importance, affecting how we view, understand and worship God.

    So pursue a church and teachers and books that are first and foremost Bible-based, Bible-rich, Bible-saturated, for we know it’s the foundation of correct theological understanding. The answer is not to reject both views and live in the middle, but rather to wholeheartedly pursue biblical truth and land wherever the Bible dictates is correct. In applying this to my own life, I landed in a reformed viewpoint, not because it’s reformed, but because I found it to be faithful to scripture.

    1. Hmm, if I move to Armenia, can I get citizenship? ;-)

  5. Michael says:

    If Alcorn truly believes in a ‘middle ground,’ then why does he label himself a ‘Calvinist’?

    1. Tim says:

      Although I also find this to be a peculiar practice, it is not uncommon. Even Spurgeon had such tensions. There seems to be something of a comfort in claiming a systems that appears to someone the lesser of evils. Some argue that without a theological system we are left only to drift. I would argue that we are then free to be guided, but I hope this sheds some light even if it doesn’t satisfy the question.

  6. Ryan Tosh says:

    As a layperson who is trying to make an informed decision about such important matters, I find the argument exhausting. Trying to define what a Calvinist is or what an Arminian is, is like nailing jello to a wall. I appreciate what Randy Alcorn is saying when he says that both sides jump to conclusions about the other. Arminians become universalists and Calvinist become hard determinists. The fact is, some are as described, but most are not.

    The thing I find most difficult is how people like Ben Witherington III, Roger Olson, Scot McKnight, JI Packer, RC Sproul, and John Piper can exegete the same scripture and come up with vastly differing theologies. I don’t doubt all of these men a God-loving people and are worthy of our respect. I personally don’t fall into the reformed camp currently, but much like Alcorn suggests, I continually read things I don’t align with to seek a better understanding of what may be the most Biblical approach.

  7. Jeremy Edgar says:

    Love Randy Alcorn and couldn’t agree more with his perspective on this issue. Far too much of the debate comes from poor communication – a failure to understand the other side before judging it. And there absolutely has to be space in our theology that leaves room for mystery. If we are truly biblical we have no other option than that!

  8. A key statement by Mr. Alcorn is this:

    “I think it’s a mistake for anyone to attach too much importance to being consistent with our own system. I was an Arminian, as a young Christian in an Arminian church, and after years of studying Scripture I gradually changed my view on election and predestination. But had I allowed my theological system to hold sway, I wouldn’t have changed my views, but would have stayed logically consistent, and that would have been a mistake.”

    I believe this is a recipe for doctrinal disaster. Evangelicals, going all the way back to the Early Church (even though the term “evangelicals” is relatively modem) have always held that one of the marks of the divine inspiration of Scripture is its internal coherence, despite having been written by about 40 authors over the course of 1500 years or so (far more than 1500 if you adopt the theory that some of the material in Genesis was handed down from Adam himself).

    In other words: God doesn’t contradict Himself.

    Thus the Reformers argued, rightly, that sound interpretation follows “the analogy of Scripture”: the Canon as a whole interpreting its parts. This leads to the unavoidable conclusion that if our doctrinal system is logically inconsistent — then there’s a problem with the system and we are driven back to the Word to correct ourselves. This is a way of discerning when error has crept in somewhere along the way.

    But if one says, with Alcorn, that doctrinal coherence is overrated, that paves the way for cults and irrationalism. No, Mr. Alcorn, if you spot a flaw in your theology (or someone points it out to you), you don’t simply shrug and say, “Well, logical consistency’s not THAT important,” because then you’re suggesting that perhaps the Bible contradicts /itself/, and that that’s “okay.” No, what you do is go back to the drawing board and get your theology straightened out.

  9. Clayton says:

    The definitions of words certainly take a beating nowadays. Its hard to truly understand what people mean even while reading their articles.

    For instance when Mr. Alcorn says . (If we depend too much on logic, we would never believe many biblical doctrines, including the Trinity—the mathematics don’t add up, do they?)

    Is he really saying that the trinity, as well as other doctrines arent logical or consistant? God (who created math and logic) couldnt describe himself to us in a way we could understand or at least aprehend?
    Contradictions arent true. Theology does matter.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

Search this blog


Trevin Wax photo

Trevin Wax

​Trevin Wax is Bible and Reference Publisher at LifeWay Christian Resources and managing editor of The Gospel Project. You can follow him on Twitter or receive blog posts via email. Click here for Trevin’s full bio.

Trevin Wax's Books