R.C. Sproul and Billy Graham represent two major Protestant views on salvation, yet both pointed people to Christ.
With a Subtitle: What Calvinism and Arminianism reveal about truth, grace, and unity in Christ
A brief Excerpt: R.C. Sproul and Billy Graham stood on opposite sides of the Calvinist-Arminian divide, yet their shared faith in Christ points to a deeper unity than theological rivalry.
The Author is: Zack Duncan
Robert Charles Sproul and Billy Graham were pastors and two of the most influential Christian leaders in American history.
Sproul (1939–2017) was a theologian, professor, and apologist who emphasized the sovereignty of God. Graham (1918–2018) was an evangelist who focused on the choice that all men and women must make to choose to follow Christ.
One God, One Protestant Reformation, two views on salvation (AI)
In other words, they were on opposing sides of the greatest theological divide in Protestantism: Calvinism vs. Arminianism.
He was one of the most important leaders of the Reformation and is the leading theological voice for Presbyterians and Reformed Baptists. There are also Reformed non-denominational churches.
Jacobus Arminius was a Dutch Reformed pastor, professor, and theologian.
Methodists, Wesleyans, Pentecostals, Anabaptists (Amish, Mennonite, Brethren) and a majority of Baptists and non-denominational churches are Arminian.
Arminius (1560–1609) was not a contemporary of Calvin (he was four years old when Calvin died) but his ideas stood in contrast to Calvin’s. Arminius and his followers (Arminians) generated the first great Protestant divide that has continued to this day.
Fun fact: if this actually happened the man on the right would have been a 4 yr old baby (AI)
Sproul was a great admirer of Calvin and spoke of him often. Graham didn’t tend to name drop Arminius, but his theology nonetheless lined up well with the Dutch professor and theologian.
Calvin’s Teaching
Calvin taught that human nature was totally depraved.
In such a fallen state, a man or woman is captive to sin and incapable of choosing to love God. Man cannot initiate salvation apart from God’s grace.
In addition to total depravity, there are four other key terms that came to be associated with Calvinist theology¹:
Total Depravity: Mentioned above.
Unconditional: God chooses humans for salvation apart from any human merit or other condition. The election for salvation is unconditional.
Limited: Because the saving grace of God is only for these elect, Christ died only for the sins of these elect people. The atonement is limited or particular.
Irresistible: When God calls someone to salvation through His grace, they are incapable of rejecting it. The grace is irresistible.
Perseverance: God’s will cannot be stopped and if God has unconditionally elected someone for salvation, that person cannot lose their salvation. This idea is something called “perseverance of the saints.”
Many Christians with a Calvinist theology today will summarize their views with the TULIP acronym based on these five terms.
Arminius’ view had many similarities but important distinctions.
Arminian Theology
Like Calvin, Arminius taught that the human will is in bondage to sin and that we are spiritually dead on our own. Humans have a nature that is totally depraved and are completely incapable of ever saving themselves.
Calvin viewed the sinner as a dead man. Arminius agreed, writing that the free will of man to choose God is “not only wounded, maimed, infirm, bent, and weakened; but it is also imprisoned, destroyed, and lost.”²
Arminius went on to add this about free will:
And its powers are not only debilitated and useless unless they be assisted by grace, but it has no powers whatever except such as are excited by Divine grace. For Christ has said, “Without me ye can do nothing.” St. Augustine, after having diligently meditated upon each word in this passage, speaks thus: “Christ does not say, without me ye can do but Little; neither does He say, without me ye can do any Arduous Thing, nor without me ye can do it with difficulty. But he says, without me ye can do Nothing! [Arminius, On the Free Will of Man and its Powers]
Both men agreed that the path to salvation is dependent on the grace of God and the Cross of Christ.
The difference between the two men wasn’t about whether total depravity exists, but how it can be overcome.
Irresistible Grace or Prevenient Grace?
Arminius viewed the sinner as totally depraved and incapable of choosing good. But God can impart a grace that allows the person to accept the gift of a life saving “medicine” of salvation.
This was something called “prevenient grace” (or “preceding grace”) which Arminius argued was available to all. This preceding grace counteracts the effects of sin and allows a man or woman to exercise their free will and make a choice to respond to the Gospel of Christ.³
The idea of such ‘“prevenient grace” that enables the dead sinner to make a free-will choice (or not) for Christ would have been foreign to Calvin. He considered grace to be irresistible.
Here are the other differences using the same TULIP acronym:
Conditional (not Unconditional) Grace: God is not bound by time as we are, and God chooses humans for salvation based on His foreknowledge of who will choose Him. The election for salvation is therefore conditional on His foreknowledge.
Unlimited (not Limited) Atonement: saving grace of God is available for all and Christ died for the sins of all. The sacrifice is effective only for those who believe, but the atonement is unlimited in its capacity to save all.
Resistible (not Irresistible) Grace: When God calls someone to salvation through His grace, they can choose to respond in faith or they can reject it. The grace can be resisted.
Perseverance: Arminians don’t believe in the Reformed idea of “perseverance of the saints.” They believe in security for all who maintain faith in Christ, but warn someone can lose salvation if they choose to turn away from the faith. This is “conditional security.”
Arminius taught his theological distinctives through the FACTS acronym.⁴
Freed by Grace (prevenient grace)
Atonement for all (the Cross was sufficient for all, but only efficient for believers)
Conditional election (God’s election is based on His foreknowledge)
Total Depravity (same as Calvin)
Security in Christ (true security requires remaining in the faith)
Let’s Fight About It
The followers of Arminius (the Remonstrants) began their protest against Protestant Calvinism in 1610 in the Netherlands.⁵
It was not appreciated by the Reformed majority.
The Synod of Dort in 1618–1619 declared the Arminian view to be heretical. Arminian ministers were labeled “disturbers of the public peace” and were stripped of their positions.⁶
In 17th century England, the Arminian view gained favor under King Charles I and the Archbishop of Canterbury William Laud. The state apparatus in the Church of England was used to tamp down the Calvinist view popular with the Puritans. The tension over theology and (especially) ecclesiology was a factor in leading to the English Civil War (1642–1651).⁷
In more modern days, some Calvinists label Arminians as pursuing a “works-based salvation” that robs glory from God and makes man the author of his own salvation. And Arminians may return the favor by saying Calvinists teach a “divine determinism” that effectively makes God the author of sin.
More Hopeful News
I saw an analysis once about how often Calvinist and Arminian pastors preached on predestination.
In many ways it’s the central flashpoint between the two theological views. Is God’s election of sinners for salvation unconditional (Calvinist)? Or is conditional based on his foreknowledge of their free will choices (Arminian)?
An interesting thing happened as they got older: the topic of predestination gradually disappeared from their sermons.
Some might argue that they got theologically lazy and lost their convictions?
Maybe.
But I think it’s something else entirely. Something that is more hopeful for the idea of unity in Christ. The longer they spent pursuing Jesus they came to focus on other matters and increasingly left this particular squabble on the sidelines.
Speaking of that, let’s get back to our boys.
Why R.C Sproul Won’t See Billy Graham in Heaven
This is a story that comes from a man who experienced it in person.
As the story goes, R.C. Sproul had recently finished teaching at this man’s church. And Sproul was leading a Q&A session.
He was asked if he would see Billy Graham, the evangelist with a decidedly Arminian outlook, in Heaven one day.
You can imagine the the sharp intake of breath of those in attendance…
Was one of America’s great Christian leaders about to accuse his contemporary of heresy? That certainly would be a position consistent with the Synod of Dort.
What would Sproul say?
As the story goes, the crowd gasped when Sproul said, “No, I don’t believe I will see Billy Graham in Heaven.”
But then he continued…
“Billy Graham will be so close to the throne of God and I will be so far away from the throne of God that I will be lucky to even get a glimpse of him.”
What happened?
Did R.C. Sproul get soft on his Reformed theology?
Or did he just show that he took the example of Jesus more seriously than he took the Synod of Dort?
I know what I believe. He was looking to his Master who washed the feet of His disciples and told them to do the same.
I believe he saw that even in deep theological difference, the faith in Christ he shared with Graham was the far more important reality.
Therefore if you have any encouragement from being united with Christ, if any comfort from his love, if any common sharing in the Spirit, if any tenderness and compassion, 2 then make my joy complete by being like-minded, having the same love, being one in spirit and of one mind. 3 Do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit. Rather, in humility value others above yourselves, 4 not looking to your own interests but each of you to the interests of the others. [Philippians 2: 1–4]
Praise the Lord.
*********
1: It’s worth noting that these 5 points of Calvinism are only a portion of Reformed theology. They were developed at the later Synod of Dort to respond to the theological arguments from Arminius and clarify the Calvinist position on those specific matters. https://learn.ligonier.org/podcasts/ask-ligonier/where-did-tulip-come-from
