• Bridging Divine Sovereignty and Human Responsibility

    Bridging Divine Sovereignty and Human Responsibility: A Theological Synthesis of Calvinism and Arminianism


    Introduction

    The debate between Calvinism and Arminianism has been a cornerstone of Protestant theological discourse since the Reformation, often creating divisions within the Church over the nature of salvation, divine sovereignty, and human free will. Calvinism, as articulated by John Calvin and later systematized in the Canons of Dort, emphasizes God’s absolute sovereignty in salvation, viewing it as a monergistic process where God unilaterally elects, redeems, and preserves the saved.1 Arminianism, stemming from the remonstrances of Jacob Arminius and his followers, stresses human responsibility and the conditional nature of salvation based on faith, portraying a synergistic interaction between divine grace and human response.2 This treatise aims to bridge these two perspectives by suggesting that Calvinism more accurately captures the divine viewpoint—God’s eternal, transcendent perspective where all things are decreed and accomplished according to His unchanging will—while Arminianism better reflects the human perspective, grounded in temporal experience, moral accountability, and the apparent freedom of choice.


    By upholding core Calvinist doctrines such as total depravity, unconditional election, and perseverance of the saints, while critically engaging with the scriptural challenges to limited atonement and the idea of regeneration preceding faith, this synthesis seeks to foster a more harmonious understanding. It posits that the effectual call of God, conveyed through the Gospel message, equips unregenerate sinners with the ability to respond in faith by decoupling faith and hope from any notion of personal accomplishment or meritorious effort. Evidence for this comes from the observable reality that unregenerate individuals across cultures and religions routinely exercise faith in false deities, ideologies, or worldly pursuits, demonstrating that the capacity for faith exists independently of regeneration.3 Scripture, moreover, indicates that regeneration and the inward baptism of the Holy Spirit occur at the precise moment of belief in Christ, not prior to it.


    To further reconcile these views, this treatise incorporates Molinism as a potential framework that affirms genuine human free will—albeit corrupted by sin—while maintaining that God sovereignly orchestrates history without authoring or dictating evil, sin, or corrupted human choices. Molinism’s concept of middle knowledge allows God to know what free creatures would do in any given circumstance, enabling Him to actualize a world that aligns with His purposes.4 Ultimately, this approach underscores that Calvinism, Arminianism, and even Provisionism can function as complementary schools of thought within the unified body of elect believers, bound together by true faith in the Gospel as outlined in 1 Corinthians 15:1–4—the proclamation of Christ’s death for sins, burial, and resurrection, received by faith alone.5


    From the divine perspective, salvation is beheld sub specie aeternitatis (“under the aspect of eternity”), where God’s decrees encompass all of history in a single, timeless act. Human actions, choices, and responses appear as integral threads in a predestined weave, orchestrated by divine wisdom.6 In contrast, the human perspective unfolds in the flux of time, where decisions carry weight, invitations demand response, and faith feels like an active embrace of grace. This dual lens acknowledges the biblical tension without resolving it into a false dichotomy, echoing the apostolic wonder in Romans 11:33–36: “Oh, the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are His judgments and His ways past finding out!” By exploring these elements in depth, this treatise invites believers to embrace the mystery, promoting theological humility and ecclesial unity.


    Shared Doctrines: Foundations of Agreement

    Despite their differences, Calvinism and Arminianism share significant doctrinal ground, particularly in areas that affirm humanity’s desperate need for grace and God’s initiative in salvation. Total depravity is a key Calvinist doctrine, asserting that the fall of Adam has rendered all humanity spiritually dead, morally corrupted, and utterly incapable of turning to God without divine intervention. As described in Romans 3:9–18, “There is none righteous, no, not one; there is none who understands; there is none who seeks after God.” Calvinists view this as an absolute inability, extending to the will itself. Classical Arminians affirm a similar view of human depravity but emphasize that it is mitigated by prevenient grace—a universal enabling grace from God that restores sufficient freedom to the will, allowing individuals to respond to the Gospel without prior regeneration.7 This nuanced agreement on depravity safeguards against any form of Pelagianism or semi-Pelagianism, highlighting that salvation originates entirely from God’s mercy, not human merit. From the divine perspective, it underscores God’s sovereign choice to intervene; from the human, it explains the universal experience of moral failure and the need for repentance.


    Unconditional election further bridges the traditions, especially when viewed through the lens of God’s eternal decree. Calvinists maintain that God elects individuals to salvation based solely on His sovereign will, independent of any foreseen faith, works, or conditions (Eph. 1:4–6; Rom. 9:11–16). This election is rooted in grace, as “it is not of him who wills, nor of him who runs, but of God who shows mercy” (Rom. 9:16). While classical Arminians interpret election as primarily corporate—God’s choice of the Church or those who believe—many acknowledge a form of individual election that respects human freedom.8 In this synthesis, unconditional election reflects the divine viewpoint: God’s timeless selection ensures the fulfillment of His redemptive plan, untainted by human contingencies. It affirms that the elect are chosen “before the foundation of the world” (Eph. 1:4), emphasizing predestination as an expression of divine love rather than arbitrary favoritism.


    Regarding perseverance of the saints, there is nuance in the convergence. Classical Arminianism does not affirm unconditional eternal security, holding instead that believers can apostatize through willful rejection of faith, as suggested by certain interpretations of passages like Hebrews 6:4–6 and 10:26–29.9 However, many modern Arminians, influenced by evangelical traditions, do embrace a form of perseverance or eternal security, viewing it as God’s faithful preservation of those who truly abide in Christ. For instance, among Dispensationalists—who span both Arminian and Calvinist camps—eternal security is widely held, often grounded in the distinction between salvation and discipleship, with assurance based on God’s promises rather than human performance.10 Calvinists, drawing from texts like John 10:27–29 (“No one shall snatch them out of My hand”) and Philippians 1:6 (“He who has begun a good work in you will complete it”), see perseverance as the inevitable outworking of God’s sovereign grace. This doctrine, from the divine perspective, guarantees the elect’s final salvation; from the human, it encourages diligence and faithfulness, as in 2 Peter 1:10 (“Make your calling and election sure”). Even where differences persist, the shared commitment to God’s role in sustaining faith provides common ground, reminding believers that salvation is “from the Lord” (Jon. 2:9).


    These overlapping doctrines form a solid bedrock for synthesis, illustrating that the core of soteriology—God’s gracious initiative amid human sinfulness—is mutually affirmed. Expanding on this, one can see how total depravity explains the universal human condition described in Genesis 6:5 and Jeremiah 17:9, where the heart is “deceitful above all things.” Unconditional election aligns with Acts 13:48, where “as many as had been appointed to eternal life believed,” blending sovereignty with the narrative of conversion. Perseverance, even in its varied interpretations, echoes Jude 24–25, praising God who is “able to keep you from stumbling.” By fleshing out these agreements, we see not irreconcilable opposites but complementary emphases that enrich our understanding of Scripture.


    Challenges in Traditional Calvinism: Limited Atonement and Regeneration Preceding Faith

    While Calvinism excels in portraying divine sovereignty, certain tenets encounter significant scriptural obstacles, notably limited atonement and the sequencing of regeneration before faith. Limited atonement, or particular redemption, claims that Christ’s sacrificial death was designed exclusively for the elect, efficaciously atoning only for their sins while providing no redemptive provision for the non-elect (Jn. 10:11, 15; Acts 20:28). This view aims to preserve the efficacy of the Cross but struggles against a host of biblical texts indicating a universal scope to the Atonement. For example, 1 John 2:2 declares, “He Himself is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the whole world.” Similarly, 1 Timothy 2:4–6 states that God “desires all men to be saved” and that Christ “gave Himself a ransom for all.” Additional support comes from 2 Peter 2:1, warning of false teachers who deny “the Lord who bought them,” implying a redemptive purchase extended even to those who ultimately perish. John 3:16–17 famously affirms that “God so loved the world” that He gave His Son for potential belief by “whoever,” and Hebrews 2:9 notes that Christ tasted death “for everyone.”11 These passages suggest an atonement sufficient for all humanity but efficient only for those who believe, aligning more closely with Arminian unlimited atonement or Amyraldian hypothetical universalism.12 From the human perspective, limited atonement can impugn the sincerity of the Gospel offer, as it implies God extends salvation to those for whom no atonement was made, potentially portraying divine insincerity.13


    The Calvinist assertion that regeneration precedes faith—that God must first impart new spiritual life before one can believe—also faces exegetical challenges. Advocates reference Ephesians 2:1–5, describing sinners as “dead in trespasses and sins,” and 1 Corinthians 2:14, where the natural man “does not receive the things of the Spirit of God.” However, numerous scriptures present faith as the precursor to life and regeneration. John 5:24 promises, “He who hears My word and believes in Him who sent Me has everlasting life, and shall not come into judgment, but has passed from death into life.” Here, belief precedes the transition from death to life. Acts 16:31 instructs, “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved,” positioning faith as the condition for salvation. John 20:31 states that the Gospel is written “that you may believe . . . and that believing you may have life in His name.” Additional texts include Galatians 3:26 (“For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus”) and Romans 10:9–10, where confession and belief result in salvation and righteousness.14 If regeneration preceded faith, it would render faith deterministic rather than responsive, potentially undermining passages like Deuteronomy 30:19 and Joshua 24:15 that call for choice. The human perspective prioritizes faith as an active trust, preserving moral accountability without diminishing grace.15


    These critiques do not invalidate Calvinism wholesale but highlight areas where Arminian insights provide balance, urging a reevaluation that honors both sovereignty and Scripture’s plain reading.


    Enabling Faith in the Unregenerate: The Effectual Call and Decoupling Faith from Effort

    Addressing these challenges requires understanding how the effectual call and the Gospel enable unregenerate sinners to exercise faith. In Calvinism, irresistible grace draws the elect infallibly (Jn. 6:37, 44), but this can be nuanced: the call’s efficacy stems not from coercion but from the illuminating power of the Gospel, which is “the power of God to salvation for everyone who believes” (Rom. 1:16). The Holy Spirit convicts the world of sin, righteousness, and judgment (Jn. 16:8–11), awakening the conscience without prior regeneration. This decouples faith from any meritorious effort; faith is passive reception, not active achievement, as Ephesians 2:8–9 clarifies: “For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works.” Hope, likewise, rests in Christ’s finished work, not human striving (Rom. 5:5; Heb. 6:18–19).16


    Empirical evidence supports this: unregenerate people globally demonstrate faith in false gods, political leaders, or material pursuits. For example, devotees in Hinduism or Islam exhibit profound trust and devotion, often at great personal cost, without Christian regeneration.17 This shows that sin corrupts the object of faith, not the faculty itself (Rom. 1:18–23). Thus, the Gospel redirects this innate capacity toward Christ, enabled by common grace or the Spirit’s external work. From the divine view, this is sovereign orchestration; from the human, it’s a genuine response.


    Expanding on this, consider how the parables of Jesus invite response from the spiritually blind (Mt. 13:3–9), or how Cornelius, a God-fearing Gentile, sought truth before his regeneration (Acts 10). These illustrate that faith can precede full spiritual renewal, with the Gospel serving as the catalyst.


    The Timing of Regeneration: Upon Faith

    Biblical evidence overwhelmingly places regeneration at the moment of faith. Ephesians 1:13–14 recounts: “In Him you also trusted, after you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation; in whom also, having believed, you were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise.” Belief precedes sealing. Galatians 3:2 queries, “Did you receive the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?” Faith is the means of reception. John 1:12–13 states, “But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name,” linking belief to sonship. Additional verses include Titus 3:5–7, where regeneration through the Spirit follows justification by grace, and 1 Peter 1:23, attributing being “born again . . . through the word of God.”18 This simultaneity resolves tensions: regeneration is God’s sovereign act, but triggered by faith, blending perspectives.


    Molinism as a Reconciling Framework

    Molinism, developed by Luis de Molina, provides a sophisticated bridge, positing three logical moments in God’s knowledge: natural (necessary truths), middle (counterfactuals of creaturely freedom), and free (actual decrees).19 God knows what free agents would do in any scenario, allowing Him to actualize a world where corrupted wills (per total depravity) still choose freely, yet history unfolds per His plan. Scriptures implying counterfactual knowledge include 1 Samuel 23:11–12 (David’s inquiry about Keilah) and Matthew 11:21–23 (woe to Chorazin and Bethsaida, who “would have repented” if miracles were done there). Jeremiah 38:17–18 presents conditional outcomes based on choices.20 Molinism upholds unconditional election via middle knowledge—God elects based on who would believe under graced circumstances—without dictating sin (Jas. 1:13). It affirms perseverance through providential means and unlimited atonement as sufficient for all.21 This framework reconciles sovereignty (God dictates history) with freedom (no dictation of evil), approximating the biblical mystery.


    Expanding, Molinism addresses Romans 8:29–30’s golden chain—“whom He foreknew, He also predestined . . . whom He predestined, these He also called; whom He called, these He also justified; and whom He justified, these He also glorified”—by grounding foreknowledge in middle knowledge rather than simple foresight or deterministic decree. In this view, God’s foreknowledge encompasses not only what will happen but what would happen under various circumstances, allowing Him to predestine individuals based on their hypothetical free responses to grace. This preserves libertarian free will, as humans genuinely choose faith or rejection in the actualized world, while ensuring divine purposes are fulfilled (Prov. 16:4; Isa. 46:10). For instance, God knows via middle knowledge who would freely respond to the Gospel call in a given set of circumstances, and thus predestines and calls them accordingly, leading seamlessly to justification and glorification without coercing their wills. This approach harmonizes the chain’s sequence with human responsibility, avoiding the Arminian risk of making election conditional on foreseen faith alone and the Calvinist implication of irresistible determinism.


    Unity in Diversity: Schools Within the Body of Christ

    Calvinism, Arminianism, and Provisionism—the latter emphasizing God’s provision for all through the Gospel—represent diverse interpretive schools within the elect body of Christ.22 Unity stems not from soteriological uniformity but from genuine faith in Christ alone, by grace alone, through faith alone (Eph. 2:8–9; Rom. 3:24–28). As Galatians 3:26–28 declares, all are one in Christ, transcending divisions. 1 Corinthians 15:1–4 defines the unifying Gospel: Christ’s death for sins, burial, resurrection, and appearances, received by faith. Differences in understanding election or atonement do not negate salvation if this core is embraced with genuine faith.23


    Historically, figures like John Wesley (Arminian) and George Whitefield (Calvinist) collaborated in revival despite debates, modeling unity (Eph. 4:1–6). Provisionism, as articulated by Leighton Flowers, focuses on God’s initiative in providing salvation to all who believe, bridging gaps by rejecting both irresistible grace and prevenient grace in favor of the Gospel’s inherent power.24 In Dispensational circles, Arminians and Calvinists coexist under eternal security, united in premillennial eschatology and faith-alone soteriology.25 This diversity enriches the Church, as Romans 14:1–4 advises against judging over disputable matters. True elect members share regeneration through faith, forming one body (1 Cor. 12:12–27). Emphasizing sola fide prevents legalism, fostering humility: “Let him who boasts boast in the Lord” (1 Cor. 1:31).


    In practice, this unity manifests in shared worship, missions, and doctrine where agreed, acknowledging that God’s truth transcends systems. As Augustine noted, “In essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; in all things, charity.”26 By prioritizing faith in the Gospel, believers honor Christ’s prayer for oneness (Jn. 17:20–23).


    Conclusion

    This expanded synthesis integrates Calvinism’s emphasis on divine sovereignty with Arminianism’s focus on human responsibility, employing Molinism as a tool to navigate the inherent tensions between predestination and free will. By steadfastly upholding doctrines like total depravity, unconditional election, and the perseverance of the saints, while thoughtfully embracing an unlimited view of the atonement and the biblical priority of faith preceding regeneration, this approach presents a more balanced and scripturally-attuned perspective on salvation. It recognizes the profound mystery at the heart of God’s redemptive plan, where divine decrees and human choices intersect in ways that surpass finite understanding, yet reveal glimpses of infinite wisdom and love.


    In doing so, it calls for a cessation of divisive polemics and a renewed commitment to unity within the body of Christ, where diverse theological schools can coexist and even complement one another under the banner of the Gospel. This unity, rooted in faith alone in Christ’s atoning work, not only strengthens the Church’s witness but also mirrors the relational harmony within the Trinity itself. As we ponder these truths, may we be drawn deeper into worship, echoing the doxology of Ephesians 3:20–21: “Now to Him who is able to do exceedingly abundantly above all that we ask or think, according to the power that works in us, to Him be glory in the church by Christ Jesus to all generations, forever and ever. Amen.” Ultimately, this bridge invites all believers to rest in the assurance that God’s sovereignty and our responsibility together proclaim the glory of grace, fostering hope for eternal fellowship in His presence.


    Footnotes

    1. John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 1960), bk. 3.
    2. Jacob Arminius, The Works of James Arminius, vol. 2 (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1986).
    3. Roger E. Olson, Arminian Theology: Myths and Realities (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2006), chap. 4.
    4. Luis de Molina, On Divine Foreknowledge (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1988).
    5. Norman L. Geisler, Chosen But Free (Minneapolis: Bethany House, 2010).
    6. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, I, q. 14 (Allen, TX: Christian Classics, 1981).
    7. Jerry L. Walls and Joseph R. Dongell, Why I Am Not a Calvinist (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2004).
    8. Brian J. Abasciano, Paul’s Use of the Old Testament in Romans 9:1–9 (London: T&T Clark, 2005).
    9. I. Howard Marshall, Kept by the Power of God (Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock, 2008).
    10. Charles C. Ryrie, So Great Salvation (Chicago: Moody Press, 1997).
    11. David L. Allen, The Extent of the Atonement: A Historical and Critical Review (Nashville: B&H Academic, 2016), pt. 2.
    12. Roger Nicole, “Particular Redemption,” in Our Savior God (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1980).
    13. Terry L. Miethe, A Baptist’s Theology (Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, 1999).
    14. F. Leroy Forlines, Classical Arminianism (Nashville: Randall House, 2011).
    15. Clark H. Pinnock, The Grace of God and the Will of Man (Minneapolis: Bethany House, 1995).
    16. Kenneth Keathley, Salvation and Sovereignty: A Molinist Approach (Nashville: B&H Academic, 2010), chap. 5.
    17. Grant R. Osborne, Romans (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2004).
    18. Robert E. Picirilli, Grace, Faith, Free Will (Nashville: Randall House, 2002).
    19. William Lane Craig, The Only Wise God (Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock, 2000).
    20. Alvin Plantinga, God, Freedom, and Evil (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1977).
    21. Thomas P. Flint, Divine Providence: The Molinist Account (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1998).
    22. Leighton Flowers, The Potter’s Promise (Houston: Trinity Academic Press, 2017).
    23. R. C. Sproul, Chosen by God (Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House, 1994).
    24. Ibid., chap. 3.
    25. Lewis Sperry Chafer, Systematic Theology, vol. 4 (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1993).
    26. Attributed to Augustine, though debated; see Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church, vol. 3 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1950).