Debates between Calvinism and Arminianism concerning salvation frequently center not only on doctrinal conclusions but also on differing approaches to biblical interpretation. Both traditions affirm the final authority of Scripture and seek to interpret biblical texts responsibly within their literary and theological contexts. Nevertheless, they often arrive at sharply different conclusions regarding divine election, grace, and human freedom.
This article examines several key passages commonly discussed in the debate and offers a Reformed (Calvinist) critique of Arminian hermeneutical method, particularly where Calvinist interpreters believe theological assumptions influence the reading of the text.
Definitions
Calvinist Monergism: All fallen human beings are spiritually dead due to sin. Salvation begins with God’s sovereign and effectual grace, which regenerates chosen individuals so that they are enabled to respond in faith to God’s offer of salvation. Salvation originates entirely in God’s initiative rather than in the human will. In this framework, regeneration precedes faith.
Arminian Synergism: All fallen human beings have been given God’s prevenient grace, which restores the ability to respond freely to the gospel. This grace is sufficient to enable faith but does not guarantee it. Faith is not caused irresistibly by grace but freely exercised by the individual. Salvation involves cooperation between prevenient grace and human response.
Romans 9:15–16 and the Ground of Salvation
Paul writes:
“I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion. So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy.”
In Romans 9, Paul addresses the question of whether God’s election compromises divine justice (9:14). His answer appeals to God’s sovereign freedom in dispensing mercy.
From a Calvinist perspective, Paul’s argument emphasizes a deliberate contrast between two possible grounds of salvation:
• human willing or striving, and
• God’s merciful decision.
The conclusion Paul draws appears categorical: salvation depends not upon human willing or effort but upon God’s mercy.
In its immediate context (Romans 9:14–18), Paul addresses the objection that God’s election might appear unjust. His response appeals directly to God’s sovereign freedom in showing mercy. The emphasis falls on God’s initiative rather than human qualification.
From a Calvinist perspective, this passage teaches that salvation ultimately depends upon God’s sovereign mercy rather than human decision or effort. Paul explicitly contrasts human willing and striving with divine mercy. He draws a categorical conclusion: salvation is grounded “not on human will or exertion.” Salvation is grounded entirely in God’s merciful action.
Nevertheless, Arminians argue that while God initiates salvation, it is actualized only when prevenient grace is met with human response. They contend that Paul is not excluding human will entirely, but only denying its sufficiency apart from grace. Thus, prevenient grace enables the human agent to choose freely, making human decision the decisive factor in salvation.
According to Arminians:
1) God universally grants prevenient grace.
2) Human beings are thereby enabled to respond freely.
3) Salvation ultimately occurs when faith freely responds to grace.
4) Election is therefore understood as conditioned upon foreseen faith.
This interpretation preserves both divine initiative and meaningful human freedom and forms a coherent theological account of salvation. The question raised by a Calvinist critique, however, is whether this understanding arises directly from Paul’s argument in Romans 9.
A Calvinist Hermeneutical Critique
From a Calvinist standpoint, Arminians have effectively altered Romans 9:16 to read: “So then it depends not on human will [alone], but on God’s mercy in response to the human will enabled by prevenient grace.” Yet this qualification is not stated within the text itself. Effectively, the Arminian reading covertly introduces a qualification into Paul’s statement — namely that salvation does not depend on human will apart from grace. However, Paul’s contrast appears absolute rather than comparative. Paul does not merely say salvation depends primarily on God or not solely on human effort. Rather, he explicitly negates human willing and striving as the basis upon which mercy depends: “not on human will or exertion.” Thus, the Calvinist critique is not that the Arminian interpretation is logically incoherent, but that it is relying upon theological categories not derived from Paul’s immediate argument.
This pattern of reinterpretation recurs throughout Arminian readings of other central Pauline texts on election and salvation. For example:
Ephesians 1:4–5
“He chose us in him before the foundation of the world… having predestined us for adoption… according to the purpose of his will.”
Calvinists argue that if election precedes the creation of the world, God’s election of his people are not to be understood as acts in time or history, but as acts that belong to God’s eternal purpose before creation. They conclude that this text teaches that God’s election of particular persons is grounded solely in divine purpose prior to human existence.
Arminian theology interprets election corporately or conditionally, arguing that God elects believers on the basis of foreknown faith.
The Calvinist concern again centers on textual grounding: foreseen faith is not explicitly mentioned within Paul’s explanation of election in this passage. More importantly, the Arminian view ignores the larger context of the passage which clearly teaches that faith itself is a gift of God since humans who are dead in sin cannot exercise faith by themselves. S. M. Baugh explains,
In Ephesians 2:1, 5, Paul has identified his audience as “dead” in transgressions… The dead cannot choose to believe and enter into election in consequence….Who, then, will deliver the lost human race from bondage to this death?
The answer of course, is that even faith – the capacity to believe in Christ – is itself a gift originating from God, mediated by his incarnate Son, and effected in them through the Holy Spirit through the secondary means of gospel proclamation (“faith comes by hearing”; Rom. 10:17) as an act of new creation. God’s gracious salvation through faith does not originate from humans themselves, and neither is it given in response to human efforts making them worthy of the gift (Eph. 2:8–9)… It runs counter to the clear teaching of Eph. 2:1–10 to propose that humans acquire the benefits of election by believing. It is a gift to those who are by nature dead and therefore must first be enlivened and raised in their Mediator before exercising this faith and enjoying its benefits (Eph. 2:5–6). Believers believe and live because they were elected and predestined to faith and all of its consequences out of God’s grace and good pleasure alone. As Augustine observes: God, therefore, chose believers, but in order that they might be believers, not because they already were.1S.M. Baugh, Ephesians (Lexham Press, 2015), pp. (pp. 168–170).
John 6:44
“No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him.”
Arminians understand the drawing as God’s prevenient and enabling grace given to all humans but the drawing could be resisted.
“Draw” translates the Greek word, ἕλκω helkō (draw, drag) which implies a strong, compelling force (BDAG, EDNT). For example, in Acts 16:19: “they seized Paul and Silas and dragged (εἵλκυσαν, aorist form of the root word ἕλκω) them into the marketplace before the rulers.” In Acts 21:30: Paul is dragged (εἷλκον,imperfect form of the root word ἕλκω) out of the temple. It is hard to avoid the impression that the same Greek word is used in John 6:44 to describe a “forceful attraction” to bring sinners to the Son. This understanding is consistent with the Calvinist understanding of Christ’s drawing as effectual grace that successfully brings individuals to Christ.
Calvinists further rebut Arminians by noting that within the larger discourse of John 6, those drawn by the Father are also those who ultimately come and are raised on the last day (John 6:37–44), suggesting an effective rather than merely enabling grace. D.A. Carson argues,
The thought of John 6:44 is the negative counterpart to John 6:37a. The latter tells us that all whom the Father gives to the Son will come to him; here we are told that no-one can come to him unless the Father draws him (cf. Mk. 10:23ff. [sic ?]). And again, it will be Jesus himself who raises such a person up at the last day. The combination of John 10:37a and John 10:44 prove that this ‘drawing’ activity of the Father cannot be reduced to what theologians sometimes call ‘prevenient grace’ dispensed to every individual, for this ‘drawing’ is selective, or else the negative note in v. 44 is meaningless. Many attempt to dilute the force of the claim by referring to John 12:32, where the same verb for ‘to draw’ (helkyō) occurs: Jesus there claims he will draw ‘all men’ to himself. The context shows rather clearly, however, that John 12:32 refers to ‘all men without distinction’ (i.e. not just Jews) rather than to ‘all men without exception’.2D.A. Carson, The Gospel according to John (IVP, 1991), p. 293.
Carson refutes the Arminian claim that Christ’s drawing is not selective, but in fact is universal since the same word (helkō) is used in John 12:32. He writes,
Here, ‘all men’ reminds the reader of what triggered these statements, viz. the arrival of the Greeks [John 12: 20-21], and means ‘all people without distinction, Jews and Gentiles alike’, not all individuals without exception, since the surrounding context has just established judgment as a major theme (v. 31)…The critical event in Jesus’ ministry that sanctions his drawing of all people without distinction, and not Jews only (cf. 10:16; 11:52), is his cross/exaltation, his being ‘lifted up’. This is the implicit answer to the Greeks: the hour has come for him to die and be exalted, and in the wake of that passion/glorification they will be able to approach him as freely as do the children of the old covenant.
While recognizing that words may have a semantic range of meaning, the context must be the final determination of the meaning of word. The immediate context of John 6 favors the Calvinist understanding of Christ’s drawing as effectual grace that successfully brings individuals to Christ.3D.A. Carson, The Gospel according to John (IVP, 1991), p. 444
The Role of Arminian Philosophical Presuppositions
Both Calvinists and Arminians affirm the authority of Scripture. Why then do Arminians miss the plain reading of texts like Romans 9:16? The answer lies in their philosophical presupposition of libertarian freedom – the belief that genuine freedom requires the ability to choose otherwise without prior determination, even by God. From this perspective, true moral responsibility depends on such freedom. Consequently, Arminians maintain that election is conditioned upon God’s foreknowledge of faith, rather than being unconditionally decreed.
This presupposition becomes the interpretive grid through which Arminians read Scripture. Whenever they encounter texts that deny human will is decisive in salvation, they must add qualifiers or reinterpret the passage to preserve libertarian freedom. Thus, Scripture is subordinated to a prior theological system.
Conclusion
When confronted with passages like Romans 9:16, which plainly teach that salvation depends not on human will but on God’s mercy, Arminians rationalize and reinterpret to safeguard their system. In short, Arminianism relies on philosophical presuppositions to evade the plain meaning of Scripture, while Calvinism embraces the text as it stands: salvation is wholly the work of God’s sovereign mercy.
The issue is clear – either Scripture governs theology, or theology governs Scripture. Arminianism chooses the latter.
—————
Additional Earlier Posts (Four-Parts Series)
The Unbreakable Chain of Salvation. Part 1: The Meaning of “Foreknowledge” in Rom. 8:29
This article is not only persuasive and compelling, it is straightforward, logical. And intellectually honest! Thank You, Dr. Ng.