Articles
What is Neo-Calvinism
What is Neo-Calvinism?
In recent weeks and months, our brethren have been engaging in a significant discourse on Calvinism and Neo-Calvinism. I've observed that much of this discussion has taken place in public forums like Facebook, prompting the question, “What is Neo-Calvinism?” This is an important question that demands a thoughtful response.
If you search for “Neo-Calvinism” on Wikipedia, you'll find an article about a movement in the early Twentieth Century among Dutch Calvinists. This movement emphasized the application of Christian principles in all aspects of life. Similarly, a search for “Soft-Calvinism” will lead you to an article about a comparable movement among American denominations later in the 1900s. However, it's unlikely that these movements are what our fellow members within the churches of Christ are referring to when they use these terms.
In the late 1950s-1970s, a movement began within churches of Christ that is referred to as the “New Unity Movement” or the “Grace Fellowship Movement.” Those who were engaged in this movement minimized the need for baptism, argued the scriptural pattern for the work of the church was not binding, and sought to broaden our fellowship to include those in denominations. One of the main avenues of argumentation used was a broadened definition of grace that lessened the need for obedience. During this time, brethren began debating the nature of man, with some arguing that man is incapable of resisting temptation. Another related debate was the question over “Continuous Cleansing,” in which some argued that the blood of Jesus was automatically applied to the Christian, i.e., he was automatically forgiven of sins, before and without confession and repentance.
Most of these ideas were rooted to some degree in Calvinistic Doctrine. The people who promoted these ideas did not claim to be Calvinists, nor did they teach the whole system; however, it seemed obvious to most that their ideas shared certain principles upon which Calvinism was founded.
For many, the term Calvinism likely conjures up the acronym T.U.L.I.P., which stands for total depravity, unconditional election, limited atonement, irresistible grace, and perseverance of the Saints (we will refer to this as Classic Calvinism for our purposes). T.U.L.I.P. is undoubtedly the public face of Calvinism, but there are key principles and mechanisms within Calvinism that are not directly relayed through the acronym.
Calvinism is a framework or system that attempts to explain the nature of God, man, and salvation. The explanation begins with a very particular view of the sovereignty of God. The Westminster Confession of Faith speaks to this in the following way: “God, from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass” (W.C.F Chapter III, Paragraph1). In other words, God’s sovereignty eliminates free will on the part of His creation. Some Calvinists may argue that we have a form of choice, but the creed says, “whatsoever comes to pass.” Everything else taught in this system flows from this view of sovereignty.
The next major premise of Calvinism is the imputation of sin and righteousness. This imputation, or transfer, is threefold. First, the guilt of Adam’s sin is transferred to all mankind. Then the sins of the elect, those God who chooses to save, are imputed to Christ. Finally, the personal righteousness of Jesus is transferred to those God elects for salvation. The doctrine of imputation (transfer) is the mechanism of Calvinism in that the transfer of sin and righteousness provides the need and the means for salvation.
Another concept essential to Calvinsim is man’s inability. This is connected with the idea of total depravity. According to the doctrine of total depravity, not only is Adam’s guilt transferred to all of his posterity, but our nature was so changed that we “lost all ability of will to any spiritual good accompanying salvation” (W.C.F. Chapter IX paragraph iii). According to most Calvinists, this nature is never changed, even in the believer, thus necessitating the transfer of Christ's righteous life to the believer.
Among churches of Christ, “neo-Calvinism” or “soft-Calvinism” became a way of describing doctrines that do not teach T.U.L.I.P. but rely on the same underlying principles and mechanisms as Classic Calvinism. To be clear, this was not a slippery slope argument. For instance, it is not obvious that someone who believes in continuous cleansing, as described above, will at some point believe in the doctrine of the perseverance of the Saints. However, both positions rely on some level of inability and a similar view of grace.
Unfortunately, we are seeing a revival of some of these ideas today. Some have charged that our preaching does not emphasize grace enough. We are told that too much importance is placed on obedience. If obedience is overemphasized, it only follows that we have made too much of work of the church and how we worship, and this charge has been levied as well. And this is the point - “neo-Calvinism” is not just a word that jealous preachers use in an attempt to knock another preacher down a peg. These concepts lead to fundamentally distinct teachings about sin, forgiveness, fellowship, and worship. To be clear, we are not talking about one or two phrases that some brethren are uncomfortable with. We are talking about concepts that present a radically different view of the nature of God, man, grace, and faith.
We do no one any favors by refusing to discuss these issues out of a desire for “unity.” It is not the discussion that divides; it is the teaching. At the very least, these issues need to be debated so that the truth can be identified.
Again, for clarity, one can teach neo-Calvinistic concepts without being a Classic Calvinist. Even among Classic Calvinists, there are a variety of opinions regarding the various T.U.L.I.P. doctrines. Neo-Calvinism refers to doctrines that utilize mechanisms such as inability and imputation (transfer), which are foundational to Classic Calvinism. Considering the prevalence of these ideas in various study resources, it should be noted that an individual could be teaching these concepts without being a Calvinist or realizing that they are teaching Calvinistic or neo-Calvinistic concepts.
How are neo-Calvinistic ideas being expressed today? Here is a list of concepts I have heard in sermons from preachers in churches of Christ over the last few years that fall within this category:
- Man’s inability to resist sin, understand scripture, or choose faith without a direct operation of the Holy Spirit.
- The imputation or transfer of the personal righteousness of Jesus or the personal goodness of God to the believer.
- Faith defined as non-doing trust.
- The idea that good works are only seen after salvation.
- A Christian’s sins are automatically and continually cleansed by the blood of Christ.
- The Gospel-Doctrine distinction (a radical de-emphasis of the New Testament Epistles)
As noted above, Classic Calvinism teaches that Adam’s sin corrupted man’s nature to such a degree that we cannot even will to do any good toward our own salvation. We might think of this as an inherited inability. Proponents of this doctrine will use phrases like “the fall” to refer to Adam’s sin, and we are told that our “sin nature” is the result.
While it would be hard to imagine someone in our fellowship arguing for inherited inability, it is not uncommon to hear brethren argue for some level of inability. Often, this concept will be presented from the negative. The suggestion will be made that emphasizing things like faithful living, Bible study, responsibility for the condition of one’s heart, etc., puts an undue burden on people they cannot bear.
The answer we are told for much of this has to do with the work of the Holy Spirit. However, the work referred to is not His work of revealing the Gospel, which “is the power of God for salvation.” Instead, we are told this work is accomplished through a literal bodily indwelling through which the Spirit enables us to understand the Gospel, softens our hearts, and guides us apart from the Word. What is not explained is why or how a person with the Spirit working in him in such a way could still fail to keep God’s commandments.
We might ask, if we cannot carry out God’s commands, how can we hope to be saved? This is where the imputation of Jesus's righteous life and God's personal goodness comes into play. To “impute,” we are told, means to “transfer.” Thus, the righteousness of Jesus is transferred to, or placed upon, the believer. We will hear the righteousness of Christ described as an umbrella, and we are told that when God looks down on us, instead of seeing our unrighteousness, He sees Jesus’s righteousness. We may hear about being clothed in the righteousness of Christ as if we were wearing a robe made of His righteousness.
While we may find this language in some hymns, it is not in Scripture. Furthermore, this position denies the Gospel's transformative power and the reality of God’s forgiveness. Scripture teaches that we must each “appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each one may be recompensed for his deeds in the body, according to what he has done, whether good or bad” (2 Cor. 5:10). And that “in Christ” we are “new creatures” (2 Cor. 5:17). Scripture says we are forgiven, not hidden (Eph. 1:7).
Another outgrowth of accepting this concept of inability is the redefining of faith, especially in the book of Romans. In Romans 1:5 and 16:26, Paul states that his goal in writing this letter is to “bring about the obedience of faith.” This statement connects faith and obedience, much like we see in Hebrews chapter 11. However, we are hearing more and more preachers using Romans 4 to claim that faith is a non-doing trust. The argument is made that Romans 4 does not speak of Abraham doing anything; therefore, the faith credited as righteousness was a non-doing trust. The logical conclusion would be that justification occurred without reference to obedience, just as our Calvinist friends argue. However, this argument ignores the facts in the text. Romans 4:3 quotes Genesis 15:6: “Then he believed God, and He reckoned it to him as righteousness.” Romans 4:22 quotes the same passage. This is important because Romans 4:16-22 refers to the conception of Isaac through whom God’s promises to Abraham would be fulfilled. Abraham obeyed God in Romans 4. Are we to believe that we can be justified apart from or before we obey God?
In the past, many of those who have taken these positions have eventually argued that we should have open fellowship with denominations. Why? Focusing on grace to the near exclusion of obedience eliminates any reason not to have fellowship with those who have altered the nature of the church. These neo-Calvinistic concepts may not go as far as Classic Calvinism, but they do remove barriers like emphasizing baptism, agreement on the work of the church, and our form of worship.
In conclusion, “neo-Calvinist” does not equal “Classic Calvinist.” However, the same mechanisms are often at play, and these concepts directly contradict what the Scriptures teach about the nature of man, sin, faith, grace, and obedience. The danger in these doctrines is not limited to where they might lead but are found in what they actually say. Rather than hide from these discussions, we need to embrace them boldly with open Bibles. Error needs to be identified so that souls can be protected.
“11 For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation to all men, 12 instructing us to deny ungodliness and worldly desires and to live sensibly, righteously and godly in the present age, 13 looking for the blessed hope and the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Christ Jesus, 14 who gave Himself for us to redeem us from every lawless deed, and to purify for Himself a people for His own possession, zealous for good deeds. 15 These things speak and exhort and reprove with all authority. Let no one disregard you.”
Titus 2:11–15 (NASB95)
Shawn Chancellor
- What_is_Neo-Calvinism.pdf (37.21 kB)
