Judging from the numerous posts I see online where non-Calvinists (often Arminians) attack Calvinists for depicting a God who causes sin and treats the reprobate unfairly, I think it’s time to make a post to bring some clarity and cultivate unity. Below are nine Calvinistic propositions which significantly intersect with Arminian theology, yet are either unknown or misunderstood by Arminians. Hopefully these can clear up confusion and minimize unwarranted attacks.
1. Libertarian Free Will of Adam and Eve Prior to the Fall
Calvinists generally agree that Adam and Eve had libertarian free will before the Fall. This means they had the genuine ability to choose between obedience and disobedience without any prior inclination towards sin. Their choice to sin was made freely and without coercion.
2. God’s Choice to Assign Federal Headship to Adam
Calvinists believe that God assigned federal headship to Adam, meaning Adam represented all of humanity. When he sinned, the consequences of his sin were propagated to his descendants via the removal of the tree of life from the Garden. These consequences included a mortal nature, the moral depravity attending such a nature, and the inevitable spiritual death eventuating from it.
3. An Infralapsarian decree of Election and Reprobation
Infralapsarianism, a prominent view within Calvinism, posits that God’s decree to permit the Fall (the lapse) logically precedes His decrees of election and reprobation. In other words, God first decided to allow the Fall and then, in response to the fallen state of humanity in Adam, decreed to save some (the elect) and pass over others (the reprobate).
4. Foreordination Distinct from Causation
Calvinists distinguish between God’s foreordination (or decree) and causation. God’s decree is His eternal plan that encompasses everything that happens; not altogether different from the Arminian notion of “foreknowledge”. But this does not mean that God directly causes all events, especially sinful acts. Instead, God creates agents with self-determined natures, and permits their evil within His sovereign plan, using it to achieve His purposes without being the author of it. In these instances, the decree is “XYZ will sin”, not “I will make XYZ sin.” The former is permissive; the latter causative.
5. Self-Determinism and Compatibilism
Most Calvinists are compatibilists, meaning they believe that free will is compatible with God’s sovereign decree. In this framework, individuals make choices based on their self-determined inclinations, which are known and integrated into God’s sovereign plan; perhaps known from their preexisting spiritual substances which God materializes and harmonizes (see Leibniz). This is no more mysterious than the seeming randomness of choices in the non-Calvinistic versions of libertarian freedom, where choices are made without any prior determination from either God or an agent’s nature.
6. God designed the scenario that saves the most people, giving common grace to all but effective grace to some.
Calvinists believe in irresistible grace, meaning that those whom God has elected will effectively come to faith. This does not mean that God denies the non-elect common grace, i.e. the grace that incites moral virtue and restrains sin, but rather that His effective grace brings the elect to salvation, often in tandem with (though not dependent on) a positive response to that common grace. Instead of seeing this as a minimalistic dishing out of grace, Calvinists consider it to be the scenario with the most saved people when compared to the Arminian scenario. Given God’s foreknowledge of man’s invariable sinfulness and ultimate rejection of common grace, only irresistible grace ensures that anyone will be saved.
7. The atonement is effectual for the elect, yet sufficient and beneficial for all
Calvinists believe that, through the atonement, God definitely intended on saving His elect. Nevertheless, that does not mean that the atonement is insufficient, non-beneficial, and totally inapplicable to the non-elect. Contrary to that notion, the atonement is of infinite value, entirely sufficient for all of humanity. There have even been Calvinists at major Synods, called hypothetical universalists, who believed that God wills the salvation of all if they would only believe (thus shifting the limitation to the granting of faith instead of the atonement). Regardless, the atonement is the basis for all forms of grace and forbearance that ever have and ever will proceed from a righteous God to a sinful humanity. From it flow common grace, the provision of the convicting Holy Spirit, the free offer of the Gospel to everyone everywhere, and the universal restraint of the forces of darkness. Whether one holds to a limited or unlimited view of the atonement, those in hell are not forgiven and do not receive the saving benefits of Christ’s work. This fact is inescapable.
8. The Reprobate’s Explainable Response to the Gospel
In both Calvinist and Arminian accounts, the scenario appears strikingly similar: a person hears the gospel, possesses the natural faculties to understand it, and yet freely refuses to come to Christ. The Calvinist traces this refusal to a moral inability rooted in a corrupt inclination of the heart. The Arminian, by contrast, offers no clear explanation. If the reprobate receives a reasonable presentation of gospel truth and the inability to believe has been lifted through prevenient grace, what then accounts for the continued rejection? Stupidity? Irrationality? Sheer randomness? The Arminian must still concede that something is wrong in the person’s heart. Whatever the condition is, the Calvinist agrees that it is not caused by God but permitted by Him. The parallel is clear: the reprobate received common grace, but not an effectual grace sufficient to overcome this condition.
9. God’s Ultimate Determination in All Soteriological Systems
In both Calvinist and Arminian systems, God is purportedly sovereign over all events. This means that He either actively causes or foreknowingly permits every event at every degree of granularity. Even when God permits events to occur, He does so within His sovereign plan and retains the power to change or intervene in any situation. As Proverbs 16:33 states, “The lot is cast into the lap, but its every decision is from the Lord.” Not even the roll of the dice happens outside of His sovereign will. In both Arminianism and Calvinism, the reprobate ends up in Hell because of God’s preliminary decisions, such as their physical makeup, geographic and temporal setting, and level of direct and indirect gracious influence (or lack thereof). He could have made a world in which they go to Heaven.
10. The Ordination of Evil: Why the Cross Exposes an Inconsistency
Arminians often object to Calvinism’s claim that God ordains all things, especially evil, yet they readily affirm that the worst moral evil in history—the crucifixion of Christ—occurred “according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God” (Acts 2:23). If God’s sovereignty can encompass that event without compromising His goodness, why should His ordination of lesser evils be morally unthinkable? Scripture itself identifies the crucifixion as the apex of human wickedness, the moment when Israel “filled up the measure” of its fathers’ sins and came under the full extent of divine wrath. And yet this very act, carried out by lawless men, was simultaneously the means by which God displayed His glory most fully. Romans 9 teaches that God’s righteous judgment against vessels of wrath reveals His power and wrath to His vessels of mercy—attributes that would remain partially veiled without the backdrop of human rebellion. The cross therefore demonstrates that God can ordain an evil act without being its author, and that He can sovereignly use human sin to accomplish a greater redemptive purpose. The real tension, then, is not in Calvinism but in the selective way non‑Calvinists apply the very principle they already affirm at Calvary.
For more info, check out this article.
The Middle Ground 