Is Calvinism vs Arminianism a manmade debate?

from the old testament

• The Old Testament establishes God’s sovereignty. In response to unrighteous nations, we read, “Our God is in the heavens; he does all that he pleases” (Psalm 115:3). God is not restricted by the activities of mankind. Nor is He reacting to our decisions. Rather, “remember the former things of old; for I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is none like me, declaring the end from the beginning and from ancient times things not yet done, saying, ‘My counsel shall stand, and I will accomplish all my purpose’” (Isaiah 46:9b–10). Everything that happens was declared by God before anything existed and no one “can stay his hand or say to him, ‘What have you done?’” (Daniel 4:35b).
• As sovereign God, He is the one who chooses who His people are. Moses remarked to Israel, “The LORD your God has chosen you to be a people for his treasured possession, out of all the peoples who are on the face of the earth. It was not because you were more in number than any other people that the LORD set his love on you and chose you, for you were the fewest of all peoples, but it is because the LORD loves you …” (Deuteronomy 7:6–8). Israel was God’s people because God chose them.
• Yet God, though He chooses, also holds people responsible for their sin. For example, He chose the Assyrians to be His instrument to punish Israel, while also promising to punish the Assyrians for attacking Israel (Isaiah 10:5–11).
• The Old Testament doesn’t resolve this tension between God choosing whom He pleases and yet holding everyone responsible for their actions.

from the new testament

• The New Testament clarified how God could save people (through faith in Jesus), but it did nothing to explain how God was sovereign while men and women were responsible.
• On the one hand, we learn that God chose who He would save before the foundation of the world (Ephesians 1:4–5), draws and calls them (John 6:37–44), gives them to Jesus (John 10:28–29), and keeps them eternally secure (Romans 8:29–30).
• On the other hand, we learn that God commands people to repent and believe (Acts 17:30), holds them responsible for their sin and disbelief (John 3:18), and punishes them for their sin (Revelation 20:11–15).
• The clearer presentation of both sides of this tension together is found in Romans 9–11. Specifically, in Romans 9 Paul teaches that God “has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills” (Romans 9:18) while also rejecting any claims of unfairness (“Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?,” Romans 9:19), saying, “who are you, O man, to answer back to God?” (Romans 9:20a). That is, rather than resolving the tension, Paul amplifies it by teaching that we can’t deny what God has said even if we can’t understand it.
• The historical debate arose when the followers of Arminius and Calvin each emphasized one side of this tension. While manmade, it is an important debate because one’s understanding of God’s sovereignty and human responsibility affects everything about the Gospel, including how to be saved, how to evangelize, and how to have assurance.
• While some forms of Calvinism have gone too far in negating human responsibility (also known as hyper-Calvinism), this site largely holds to the tenets of Calvinism, faithfully holding both sides of the tension despite being unable to completely reconcile them.

implications for today

The debate between Calvinism and Arminianism is largely a debate about how humanity fits into the “salvation equation.” Both views agree that salvation is only through Jesus, but the question of how we become saved is where the lines are drawn. Arminianism emphasizes humanity’s free will decision, whereas Calvinism emphasizes God’s free will decision.

In a sense, the two views exist because Scripture presents an unresolvable tension. Some passages say that God alone elects, draws, saves, and causes perseverance. Yet other passages say that people must confess their sins and trust in Jesus.

How can we solve this tension? In short: we shouldn’t! The debate exists largely because people are trying to answer an unanswerable question. Because Scripture doesn’t answer it, philosophical arguments, such as the necessity of free will, are introduced.

We would do well, however, to follow Paul’s example. He had the opportunity to present a free-will argument in Romans 9, but didn’t. He started with the question people still have today: “Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?” (Romans 9:19). If it’s all about God’s sovereignty, then how can He hold me guilty of my sin? Paul’s answer was not “we have free will." Instead, it was, “But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, ‘Why have you made me like this?’” (Romans 9:20). In short, Paul appealed to God as sovereign without trying to solve the question!

In the end, while both sides make valid points, we err if we ever say that human will overrides God’s will or that God saves against someone’s will. How do we respond to such a mystery? By expressing humility, we limit our conclusions to what God has revealed.