Can 5-point Calvinism ever lead to a "great missionary movement"?

In The Forgotten Ways, Alan Hirsch writes:

In the study of the history of missions, one can even be formulaic about asserting that all great missionary movements begin at the fringes of the church, among the poor and the marginalized, and seldom, if ever, at the center.

It is vital that in pursuing missional modes of church, we get out of the stifling equilibrium of the center of our movements and denominations, move to the fringes, and engage in real mission there.

But there’s more to it than just mission; most great movements of mission have inspired significant and related movements of renewal in the life of the church. It seems that when the church engages at the fringes, it almost always brings life to the center. This says a whole lot about God and gospel, and the church will do well to heed it.

This got me thinking: I've criticized 5-point Calvinism in the past for appealing to the well-off and comfortable, and rarely if ever being adopted by those at the margins. 

If both are true, that Calvinism almost never appeals to the marginalized, and that all great missionary movements begin among the marginalized, has Calvinism ever led to a great missionary movement? Could it?

Of course I don’t mean to ask whether an individual Calvinist can be a successful evangelist; God can use anyone anywhere. What I question is whether the doctrines of Calvinism, particularly in their Piper/Edwards/determinist form, would ever appeal beyond those who are comfortable in society.  

Or perhaps another way to think of it, can Calvinists be successful at evangelism without compromising the basic tenants of 5-point Calvinism (TULIP)?

Calvinism in China

Look again at China as an illustration:

In May, 2009 an article appeared in The Guardian which discussed the growth of Calvinism in China.  The article noted:

Although Calvinism is shrinking in western Europe and North America, it is experiencing an extraordinary success in China. [...] but it's absolutely unlike the pattern in Africa and Latin America. There, the fastest growing forms of Christianity are pentecostal, and they are spreading among the poor.

But in China neither of those things are to be true.

[...] in China, the place where Calvinism is spreading fastest is the elite universities, fuelled by prodigies of learning and translation.

Another writer, Fredrik Fällman of Stockholm University, explains:

The phenomenon of "New Calvinists" in contemporary China is primarily a development in the big cities of Eastern and Central China, and most people involved are relatively well educated. [...] It is a multi-faceted phenomenon, but very much oriented to the elites in society, in that way, resembling the Cultural Christians of the 1980-90's. There is another similarity with the forerunners on the notion of influence. These groups cannot easily gain influence over the majority of Pentecostal and charismatic movements or the CCC/TSPM, but the important thing is to be right, to break the new and correct path.

In another place, Fällman adds, "Reformed Christianity may also appeal to the subconscious Confucian thought patterns and beliefs that linger among Chinese elite intellectuals in general."

This, of course, is unsurprising.  We would expect determinist theology to appeal to "elites", who live comfortably, insulated from the world's worst evils, and therefore have an easy time believing that the world is just as God intended it to be.

Are there any examples of successful Calvinist missionary movements?

In his article “How to Teach and Preach ‘Calvinism’”, John Piper writes:

Make Spurgeon and Whitefield your models rather than Owen or Calvin, because the former were evangelists and won many people to Christ in a way that is nearer to our own day.

If Whitefield and Spurgeon are the go-to models of successful Calvinist evangelists, could they be effective counter-examples to my suggestion? As noted above, I do not mean to suggest that individual Calvinists cannot be successful missionaries or evangelists; the question is whether their theology would ever birth a great missionary movement. Still, lets take a closer look at their respective ministries:


Whitefield

It's interesting that Piper uses Whitefield as an example when, on another occasion, Piper himself noted that other Calvinists at the time found Whitefield's Calvinism suspect because of his evangelism! Piper states:

The Particular Baptists [that is, “the Calvinistic Baptists, in distinction from the General (or Arminian) Baptists” (note 5)] did not like either of these evangelical leaders. Wesley was not a Calvinist, and Whitefield’s Calvinism was suspect, to say the least, because of the kind of evangelistic preaching he did. The Particular Baptists spoke derisively of Whitefield’s “Arminian dialect.”

While I do not know very much about Whitefield, I have previously noted Dr Brendlinger’s writings about him and Wesley in his book Social Justice Through the Eyes of Wesley:

Dr Irv A Brendlinger, Professor of Church History and Theology at George Fox University, notes two major areas of disagreement between John Wesley (Arminian) and George Whitefield (Calvinist):

1. “A major disagreement was over Whitefield's staunch position on predestination"; and  
2. "The other disagreement between Wesley and Whitefield was over slavery. Both men spent time in Georgia and observed slavery first-hand. While Wesley's attitude towards slavery was consistent--unequivocally opposed--Whitefield's view changed from opposition to support” (p 5).

To me, the second disagreement makes sense in light of the first: why would Whitefield fight against evil if he believed that God had ordained that evil for His greater glory?

More than just supporting slavery, Whitefield actually believed slavery could advance evangelism!  

Dr Brendlinger writes:

While Whitefield was a friend of Benezet and opposed the abuses of slavery, he was not against slavery itself. In fact, he lobbied for the introduction of slavery in the colony of Georgia and when it was legalized he became the owner of some fifty slaves on the land that housed his orphanage, Bethesda. His sentiments are seen clearly in a letter he wrote to Wesley in 1751.

[...]

Whitefield's position had changed from his earlier opposition to slavery so that now he saw it as necessary for the financial survival of his orphanage and a possible means to the conversion of Africans. He was deeply opposed to the slave trade and abuses within slavery, but felt it could be a workable and beneficial system if handled justly.

[...]

The form of predestination Wesley opposed could take a softer position on slavery because, in the context of theological determinism, a system [in which a slave owner could deprive a slave of all spiritual exposure] ...was irrelevant; God would work salvation in the elect regardless of circumstances"

Regarding John Wesley's evangelistic outlook, on the other hand, Dr Brendlinger writes (bold mine):

Because he believed the atonement is universal, it follows that all persons are potentially recipients of God's saving grace. Wesley was convinced that the most effective way of communicating God's love was through doing good works for ones neighbour. This is clearly seen in his sermon, "Free Grace," in which he stated that the doctrine of predestination (and limited atonement) destroys a major motivation for doing good to others.

[...]

The focal point for Wesley was that every slave was a potential believer and doing good for them as neighbours, acting in love, would be the most effective means of persuading them of God's love.  This clearly flies in the face of the evangelizing approach of others, such as Whitefield and the SPG, who believed that slavery, in spite of its brutality and cruelty, facilitated evangelism by exposing Africans to Christianity. There was no question that this aspect of Wesley's theology influenced his position. From his own actions on behalf of the slave, it is clear that the good works he envisioned as a means of evangelizing the slave included: helping the destitute slave, and especially removing the chains of slavery.

Wesley's doctrine of prevenient grace helped lay a foundation for antislavery thought, his own and that of his followers, by addressing the nature of the slave (capable of experiencing a relationship with God), the nature of the slave owner and slave trader (they knew right from wrong and had a capacity for benevolence), and the nature of Christianity, which seeks to bring all to awareness of God's love and grace by doing good to others. (p 87-90)

He also noted the importance of belief in free-will to Wesley & Whitefield’s missionary movement and the societal change that resulted:

One result of Wesley's teaching was a general softening of the harsh Calvinism of the time. [...] He taught people to take responsibility for their situation, rather than acquiescing to theological fatalism. [...] Wesley's Arminianism encouraged people to share in the responsibility for their position, both temporal and eternal. [...] Rather than helpless victims, people could work to alter their own conditions and, even more relevant to social reform, they could work to alter the conditions of their fellows.

[...]

What Wesley taught in this regard was powerful not because it was new, although it was for many, but because he successfully proliferated such ideas. People believed them and acted on them. The number of people who so responded continued to multiply. The emotional and theological climate of the country began to change. In the early part of the eighteenth century, people tended to accept slavery as a reality of a fallen world and to challenge it theologically would be to doubt God's sovereign purposes. But by the latter part of the century, the views were very different; people viewed slavery as something that needed to be challenged theologically and abolished. Two facts make it reasonable to attribute the change in large part to Wesley: his interpretation (and application) of Arminius is completely consistent with this different way of thinking, and Methodism grew so extensively that his influence was felt throughout Britain and America. At the very least Wesley's work functioned as a kind of "leven" in society.

All of this, I think, tempers any suggestion that Calvinism contributed to the movement; rather it seems that Whitefield’s positive involvement was to some degree in spite of his Calvinism.

We also begin to see his attitude towards the marginalized; on the one hand, towards the orphan, but on the other, towards those held in slavery.


Spurgeon

Could Spurgeon's work in evangelism counter my suggestion that no great missionary movement will result from Calvinism?  I don’t think so.

In fact Dave Hunt notes, “especially in his later years, Spurgeon often made statements that were in direct conflict with Calvinism. His favorite sermon, the one through which he said more souls had come to Christ than through any other, was criticized by many Calvinists as being Arminian!” (What Love Is This?, p 38, bold mine)

Hunt later quotes AC Underwood who wrote that while “Charles Haddon Spurgeon always claimed to be a Calvinist...his intense zeal for the conversion of souls led him to step outside the bounds of the creed he had inherited.”:

His sermon on “Compel them to come in” was criticized as Arminian and unsound. To his critics he replied: “My Master set His seal on that message. I never preached a sermon by which so many souls were won to God.... If it be thought an evil thing to bid the sinner lay hold of eternal life, I will yet be more evil in this respect and herein imitate my Lord and His apostles.”

More than once Spurgeon prayed, “Lord, hasten to bring in all Thine elect, and then elect some more.” He seems to have used that phrase often in conversation, and on his lips it was no mere badinage. [...] The truth seems to be that the old Calvinistic phrases were often on Spurgeon’s lips but the genuine Calvinistic meaning had gone out of them.

J. C. Carlile admits that “illogical as it may seem, Spurgeon’s Calvinism was of such a character that while he proclaimed the majesty of God he did not hesitate to ascribe freedom of will to man and to insist that any man might find in Jesus Christ deliverance from the power of sin (emphasis added).” (A History of English Baptists, p 203-206, quoted in What Love Is This?, p 154-55, bold mine).

You can read “Compel them to come in” here.

Spurgeon himself admitted he sounded Arminian at times, saying for example, at the end of his sermon “Sovereign Grace and Man’s Responsibility” (bold mine):

Now, with regard to myself; you may some of you go away and say, that I was Antinomian in the first part of the sermon and Arminian at the end. I care not. I beg of you to search the Bible for yourselves. To the law and to the testimony; if I speak not according to this Word, it is because there is no light in me. I am willing to come to that test. Have nothing to do with me where I have nothing to do with Christ. Where I separate from the truth, cast my words away. But if what I say be God's teaching, I charge you, by him that sent me, give these things your thoughts, and turn unto the Lord with all your hearts.

In the same sermon he criticized Calvinists who hold to double predestination, saying (bold mine):

I believe the higher a man goes the better, when he is preaching the matter of salvation. The reason why a man is saved is grace, grace, grace; and you may go as high as you like there. But when you come to the question as to why men are damned, then the Arminian is far more right than the Antinomian. I care not for any denomination or party, I am as high as Huntingdon upon the matter of salvation, but question me about damnation, and you will get a very different answer. By the grace of God I ask no man's applause, I preach the Bible as I find it. Where we get wrong is where the Calvinist begins to meddle with the question of damnation, and interferes with the justice of God; or when the Arminian denies the doctrine of grace.

He similarly criticized Calvinists who teach limited atonement, on 1 Timothy 2:3-4 teaching:

What then? Shall we try to put another meaning into the text than that which it fairly bears? I trow not. You must, most of you, be acquainted with the general method in which our older Calvinistic friends deal with this text. "All men," say they,—"that is, some men": as if the Holy Ghost could not have said "some men" if he had meant some men. "All men," say they; "that is, some of all sorts of men": as if the Lord could not have said "all sorts of men" if he had meant that. The Holy Ghost by the apostle has written "all men," and unquestionably he means all men. I know how to get rid of the force of the "alls" according to that critical method which some time ago was very current, but I do not see how it can be applied here with due regard to truth. I was reading just now the exposition of a very able doctor who explains the text so as to explain it away; he applies grammatical gunpowder to it, and explodes it by way of expounding it. I thought when I read his exposition that it would have been a very capital comment upon the text if it had read, "Who will not have all men to be saved, nor come to a knowledge of the truth." [...] My love of consistency with my own doctrinal views is not great enough to allow me knowingly to alter a single text of Scripture. [...] So runs the text, and so we must read it, "God our Savior; who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth."

Does not the text mean that it is the wish of God that men should be saved? The word "wish" gives as much force to the original as it really requires, and the passage should run thus—"whose wish it is that all men should be saved and come to a knowledge of the truth." As it is my wish that it should be so, as it is your wish that it might be so, so it is God's wish that all men should be saved; for, assuredly, he is not less benevolent than we are.

Even in the famous sermon where he declared “Calvinism is the gospel”, he criticized the doctrine of Limited Atonement where it is applied to limit the extent of the atonement (note, everyone except universalists hold that the intent and application are limited; that is, I hold the intent was to save all those who believe, and the application is only to those who do believe):

I know there are some who think it necessary to their system of theology to limit the merit of the blood of Jesus: if my theological system needed such a limitation, I would cast it to the winds. I cannot, I dare not allow the thought to find a lodging in my mind, it seems so near akin to blasphemy. In Christ's finished work I see an ocean of merit; my plummet finds no bottom, my eye discovers no shore. There must be sufficient efficacy in the blood of Christ, if God had so willed it, to have saved not only all in this world, but all in ten thousand worlds, had they transgressed their Maker's law. Once admit infinity into the matter, and limit is out of the question. Having a Divine Person for an offering, it is not consistent to conceive of limited value; bound and measure are terms inapplicable to the Divine sacrifice. The intent of the Divine purpose fixes the application of the infinite offering, but does not change it into a finite work.

With these examples in mind, can it be said that Calvinism contributed to his evangelism?  It seems that his views were often in conflict with the Calvinists of his day (and many of the Calvinists today), and his evangelistic zeal was even at the time criticized as being "Arminian".

One last thought

The Apostle Paul wrote to the church in Corinth:

Brothers and sisters, think of what you were when you were called. Not many of you were wise by human standards; not many were influential; not many were of noble birth. But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong. God chose the lowly things of this world and the despised things – and the things that are not – to nullify the things that are, so that no one may boast before him. It is because of him that you are in Christ Jesus, who has become for us wisdom from God – that is, our righteousness, holiness and redemption. Therefore, as it is written: ‘Let the one who boasts boast in the Lord.’ (1 Cor 1:26-31, NIVUK).

It seems that there was a principle at work in the 1st century which, as Alan Hirsch noted, has remained true for all great missionary movements since. “This says a whole lot about God and gospel, and the church will do well to heed it.”

Related Posts:

• Irv Brendlinger, "John Wesley's theological challenge to slavery";
• Alan Hirsch & Sean Gladding, "Missional Culture and Ministry Training" (Seedbed);
• The Complete List of Dr David Allen's Chapter-by-Chapter Review of "From Heaven He Came and Sought Her";
• TC Moore, "Puritans and the Proof in the Pudding: Is Slave-owning Unrelated to Calvinism?";
• “The family secret”: when Calvinists all but deny Calvinism.

TC Moore, "Puritans and the Proof in the Pudding: Is Slave-owning Unrelated to Calvinism?"

Excerpt:

"Pure" Calvinism: Predestined to Slavery 

 Here is an example of the "genetic relationship" between Calvinist theology and slave-owning [from the lyrics of Hip Hop artist Propaganda's song "Precious Puritans"]:

They looked my onyx and bronze skinned forefathers in they face, 

Their polytheistic, god-hating face. 

Shackled, diseased, imprisoned face. 

And taught a gospel that says God had multiple images in mind when he created us in it. 

Their fore-destined salvation contains a contentment in the stage for which they were given which is to be owned by your forefathers’ superior image-bearing face. 

Says your precious puritans. 

"Fore-destined salvation" is the Calvinistic doctrine of Election and/or Predestination (both involve exhaustive definite foreknowledge and causal determinism). To what does Propaganda connect this doctrine? The false gospel of a hierarchy of image-bearing in human beings. How did that happen? Calvinist theology *necessitates* that the fate of enslaved Africans was the *predestined* will of God. Calvinist theology *necessitates* that the social injustice enacted by Puritans was *God-ordained* for *God's glory.*

[...] 

The end of Calvinism is oppression. Call it: Applied Calvinism. The Puritans' problem wasn't disconnecting their theology from their practice. It's the modern-day Calvinists who have a problem with the very clear connection the Puritans made—and practiced. Here is the ugly truth: Whenever and wherever the powerful in a society believe they are specially chosen by God, oppression results. That is the historical fact—whether it is pleasant or not.

Click here to read the full post (from October 14, 2012).


Further Reading:

• TC Moore, "Reconciliation Theology: Efrem Smith Contrasts and Counters Calvinism's Hegemony";
• Efram Smith, "Holy Hip Hop and Calvinism: An Odd Marriage Indeed".

Related Posts:

• Irv Brendlinger, "John Wesley's theological challenge to slavery";
• Calvinism's Determinist Worldview: a "theology of resignation".

Calvinism's Determinist Worldview: a "theology of resignation"

In a previous post (link), I suggested that 5-point Calvinism and the five points of Arminianism each affect our worldview (and have affected mine, first as a Calvinist and now as a 4-point Arminian); Calvinism towards a "determinist worldview" and Arminianism towards an "evangelism worldview".

This past week I began reading Greg Boyd, God At War: The Bible & Spiritual Conflict.  Chapter one includes an interesting discussion contrasting the determinist worldview (Dr Boyd calls it the "providential blueprint worldview") as held by Augustine and the later church, with the "warfare worldview" of the New Testament and early post apostolic church.

Dr Boyd shows that the determinist "providential blueprint worldview" developed largely from Augustine's reinterpretation of "the truths that God alone is eternal, that God is self-sufficient within his own triune identity apart from the world, that God is altogether omnipotent and omniscient, and thus that God is sovereign over world history".  Augustine reinterpreted these in a way that was "more in line with Neo-Platonism and the broader Hellenistic philosophical tradition than it was with the Bible.  Hence out of fidelity to Scripture, Augustine's framework for understanding these truths needs to be seriously reexamined" (p 68).

Dr Boyd writes (bold mine):

One of the main reasons why the warfare worldview was gradually compromised in the thinking of the early apologists, especially Augustine's theology, and one of the central reasons why believers have to some extent resisted it since, is that this worldview runs counter to a particular model of divine perfection--a model that did not derive principally from Scripture, nor was it required by logic. It was, rather, derived mostly from Hellenistic philosophy.

For example, from Plato, Aristotle and the subsequent Hellenistic tradition, the church arrived at the notion that God is altogether unmoved, impassible, immutable, nontemporal and purely actual. Yet it was precisely these features of the church's doctrine of God that logically undermined the integrity of the warfare worldview. On the basis of this model of God, a meticulous, sovereign, divine blueprint was postulated to encompass all temporal events, including the cosmic war.

This had the effect, however, of rendering the war a sham. For a war that meticulously follows a blueprint that has been drawn up by one of the parties involved in the war (God) is hardly a real war. It was principally for this reason that the problem of evil stopped being the New Testament problem of confronting and overthrowing the enemy and started being the intellectual problem of figuring out how this enemy (and all evil) fits into God's providential script. (p 67, bold mine).

Earlier Dr Boyd asks, "What is more, would not such a conception [that all events come from the hand of God] significantly undermine the godly urgency one should have to confront such evil as something God is unequivocally against?" (p 39, bold mine), and adds in a footnote:

Schelling (God and Human Anguish, p 59-72) speaks against a "theology of resignation," which results from the sort of implicit theological determinism reflected in many of the traditional hymns of the church. We resign ourselves to accept as from the hand of God what we ought to revolt against as from the hand of Satan. We thereby trade in biblical spiritual activism for a nonbiblical form of passivity and pseudo security. (note 12, p 302, bold mine)

(See my post, Irv Brendlinger, "John Wesley's theological challenge to slavery" for more on Calvinism's resignation and reluctance to confront evil.  Dr Boyd, who holds to an openness view, also challenges the traditional Arminian understanding --the view closest to my own--which he believes "has not removed itself far enough from classical-philosophical assumptions about God", p 48-49, though he notes that Arminian theologians "have been somewhat more logically consistent in working out the implications of the concept of freedom and have therefore significantly qualified the classical-philosophical understanding of God's omnipotence as entailing omnicontrol" and "have explicitly rejected the Augustinian assumption that the will of God can never be thwarted", p 48).


John Piper's call to "Make War!"

Thinking of this contrast, I was reminded of Tedashii's song, "Make War" (Reach Records), which begins with a quote from John Piper (a popular Calvinist preacher) exposing and confronting the same problem.  John Piper says (video below):

“I hear so many Christians murmuring about their imperfections and their failures and their addictions and their short-comings, and I see so little war! ‘Murmur, murmur, murmur, why am I this way?’ Make war!”

It is sad and unfortunate that Dr Piper's own theology leads to the very problem he identifies and, thankfully, wants to fight against. (Dr Piper, of course, has taken determinism to another level with his "7th point, the best-of-all-possible worlds", link.  For a critique of best-of-all-possible worlds, see Roger Olson "Is this the best of all possible worlds? What I would think if I were a Calvinist").


Make War

Here is Tedashii's video. Dr Piper's quote is from a 2002 sermon on Romans 8 (and full disclosure: I love Reach Records. I've listened to them since Lecrae's first album was re-released by Cross Movement Records in 2005, and Tedashii is one of my favourite artists):

Further Reading:

Books

• Greg Boyd, God At War: The Bible & Spiritual Conflict (Google Preview, or Find in a Library).

Blog posts

• Greg Boyd, "Resignation to Evil: Not an Option"; and
• Also see Dr Boyd's 5-part series, "Rethinking Election: Romans 9".

Related Posts: 

• Highlighting an Arminian response to John Piper: Did God decree every sin you commit? ;
• Dr William Lane Craig, "Calvinism and Universal Divine Causal Determinism";
• Irv Brendlinger, "John Wesley's theological challenge to slavery";
• Arminianism vs Calvinism as a "whole life theology" or a "one-sided theology";
• On Assurance of Salvation and Calvin's “Evanescent Grace”;
• Paul Eddy and Greg Boyd Explain the Corporate View of Election.

Arminianism vs Calvinism as a "whole life theology" or a "one-sided theology"

William Birch, of I, Jacobus Arminius, begins his post “Is there more to Arminianism than its five points?”:

John Bugay of Triablogue posted a comment from Stephen Wolfe's Facebook page that suggests Roman Catholicism should be the Calvinist's greatest focus and opponent, not Arminianism; that the latter should be reduced merely to its five points, but, conveniently, Calvinism should not; and that Arminianism is not a way of life, as is Calvinism. (link) Is this even close to being accurate with regard to Arminianism? Not surprisingly -- at least not from the Calvinist's errant perspective of Arminianism -- the answer is no.

In the article to which Birch refers, Wolfe says “Calvinism is ultimately a comprehensive view of living in the world, just as Roman Catholicism is a comprehensive view of living in the world” and by engaging in “The ‘five points’ debate”, Calvinists “demote Calvinism to a pathetically limited set of doctrine.”

Wolfe's comments are interesting in the way that they challenge the “New Calvinism” mindset. It is a New Calvinist tendency, especially among Calvinist Baptists, to equate “Reformed Theology”/”Calvinism” with the 5-points, rather than embracing fuller Covenantal theology (which would exclude Baptist “Calvinists”). This mistaken understanding of what it means to be "Reformed" is also the reason so many Calvinists have a hard time understanding how one can be a "Reformed Arminian" (that is, a Classical Arminian).

Dr Roger Olson has noted that this is really an American phenomenon (link):

Except in the United States, “Reformed Theology” has largely turned its back on Calvin’s (and Beza’s, Edwards’, and Hodge’s) views of God’s sovereignty without abandoning God’s sovereignty as in process theology. This is what makes the American habit of equating Reformed theology with traditional Calvinism ironic. The rest of the Reformed world has by-and-large shifted away from “decretal theology” and divine determinism to a highly modified, often paradoxical (dialectical) view of God’s sovereignty that leaves room for human freedom. British Reformed theologian (who taught also in Germany) Alasdair Heron (d. 2014) stated in his article on Arminianism in The Encyclopedia of Christianity that much Reformed theology has come around to embrace the basic impulses of Arminianism.

Personally, I wonder if American Calvinism’s continued focus on T.U.L.I.P. is a result of the individualism of American culture painting our reading of the Scripture (so that, for example, we read individualism into words like "election" in the New Testament, rather than seeing it corporately as the early church did, and as we do through the Old Testament--for more on this, see: Paul Eddy and Greg Boyd Explain the Corporate View of Election).

Is Arminianism a “whole life theology”?

It’s true, in a sense, that Arminianism might be reduced to its five points: it is a theology of salvation.  Often Wesleyanism (John Wesley) or Covenant theology (Jacob Arminius) are added to it.  However, even as a theology of salvation, it is a “whole life theology” in the sense that it forces us to wear a “Gospel-lens” over all of our interactions, and thereby becomes a "theology of practice". Birch points out (link):

Arminianism, and especially Wesleyan-Arminianism, is missional in nature.  […] Arminianism very naturally gives expression to missionary endeavors, as God loves each and every person, and desires, according to Scripture, the salvation of each and every person. This biblical truth motivates the believer to witness to her or his faith in Christ toward the salvation of others. Evangelism is the heart of God and of Arminian theology.

Or, as Omar Rikabi, a United Methodist Pastor, has written (link), “the gospel doesn’t discount anyone from grace and salvation[…] If we believe in prevenient grace—that Jesus is pursuing every person—we can only know what he’s up to by entering into their story through holy love.”

Arminianism, then, is a whole life theology in that it drives us, everyday and with every part of our lives, to engage those around us with the Gospel, knowing that God is already seeking them and we are cooperating in His pursuit.

What About the 5-points of Calvinism?

Could 5-point Calvinism be a “whole life theology”?  On this point I think Wolfe is correct in so far as he argues that, when reduced to it's 5-points, it cannot. For the Remonstrants, I do not think the 5-points of Arminianism were ever intended to cover the whole of the Christian life; recall that the Remonstrants were Reformed in the broad sense, embracing Covenant Theology.  The five points they introduced in the “Articles of Remonstrance” were the areas where they disagreed with the Reformed Church at the time. In the other areas, as I understand it, they had unity.

Those who make the 5-points of Calvinism the whole of the Christian life--sometimes even equating them with the Gospel--are really basing their worldview on the one area where the Reformed Church disagreed rather than the areas where the church was in unity.

Five-point Calvinism might be considered a “comprehensive view of living in the world” in the sense of accepting a determinist worldview; that God has caused all that happens, whether the utmost evil or good, but as I’ve suggested before, I believe this amounts to a “theological system [that] leads inexorably to ethical blindness, comprise, duplicity, and evil. […A] view of God [that] lead[s the Calvinist] to live falsely in the world” (link).

The only true “whole life theology” is Jesus

If 5-point Calvinism and the 5-points of Arminianism should really only be considered a “whole life theology” in so far as they affect your worldview--5-point Calvinism towards a deterministic worldview, and Arminianism towards an evangelism worldview (at least that's been my experience, first as a Calvinist and now as an Arminian)--then how do we assess them?

I think both sides would agree that the only true “whole life theology” is Jesus.  He is “the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of his being” (Heb 1:3); He is “the image of the invisible God” (Col 1:15); He is the only One who could say, “Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father” (John 14:9).  Moreover, He is the one we are to imitate: “whoever claims to live in him must live as Jesus did” (1 John 2:6).

Which worldview, then, is more Christ-like, and more like Christ’s?  

As far as an evangelism worldview, I would hope both sides could agree: the Lord himself said "the Son of Man came to seek and to save the lost" (Luke 19:10; cf Matthew 18:11--though Calvinists may disagree on whether Jesus' mission includes all people or only the elect).  

But did Jesus also have a determinist worldview? Dr Greg Boyd writes (link):

How can you, and why would you, revolt against something you believe can’t be other than it is?   

I suggest that Jesus had a very different mindset, as did most of the early Church fathers.  

When Jesus encountered people who were physically, socially or spiritually oppressed, he never once encouraged them to resign themselves to their situation as being part of God’s mysterious plan. He rather viewed their various afflictions as the direct or indirect result of Satan’s will – and he revolted against them.   

For example, when Jesus confronted a Jewish woman with a deformed back, he asked, “should not this woman, a daughter of Abraham, whom Satan has kept bound for eighteen long years, be set free …”(Lk 13:16, emphasis added)? This is what we consistently find throughout the Gospels. Peter summarized Jesus entire ministry by saying he “went around doing good and healing all who were under the power of the devil…” (Ac. 10:38, emphasis added).   

Far from supposing that things like diseases and deformities were part of a great divine plan or that they glorified God, Jesus revealed God’s will and glorified God by coming against these things! Jesus ministry was not about helping people accept the world as it is – as though it now reflected God’s will. His ministry was about helping people revolt against the world as it now is – in order to bring about God’s will.

One-Sided Theology

Responding to the fellow Calvinists of his day who would equate the 5-points of Calvinism with “the faith of God’s elect”, the early dispensationalist Calvinist CH Mackintosh (1820 – 1896) wrote (link), “We believe these five points, so far as they go; but they are very far indeed from containing the faith of God's elect. There are wide fields of divine revelation which this stunted and one-sided system does not touch upon, or even hint at, in the most remote manner.”

Commenting on some of the Scriptures which should challenge us to question 5-point Calvinism, he wrote (bold mine):

Then again we rarely find a mere disciple of any school of doctrine who can face scripture as a whole. Favourite texts will be quoted, and continually reiterated; but a large body of scripture is left almost wholly unappropriated. For example; take such passages as the following, "But now God commandeth all men everywhere to repent." (Acts 17:30.) And again, "Who will have all men to be saved, and to come to the knowledge of the truth." (1 Tim. 2.) So also, in 2 Peter, "The Lord .... is long-suffering to usward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance." (2 Peter 3:9.) And, in the very closing section of the volume, we read, "Whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely."  

Are these passages to be taken as they stand? or are we to introduce qualifying or modifying words to make them fit in with our system? The fact is, they set forth the largeness of the heart of God, the gracious activities of His nature, the wide aspect of His love. It is not according to the loving heart of God that any of His creatures should perish. There is no such thing set forth in scripture as any decree of God consigning a certain number of the human race to eternal damnation. Some may be judicially given over to blindness because of deliberate rejection of the light. (See Rom. 9:17; Heb. 6:4-6; 10:26, 27; 2 Thess. 2:11, 12; 1 Peter 2:8.) All who perish will have only themselves to blame. All who reach heaven will have to thank God.  

If we are to be taught by scripture we must believe that every man is responsible according to his light. The Gentile is responsible to listen to the voice of creation. The Jew is responsible on the ground of the law. Christendom is responsible on the ground of the full-orbed revelation contained in the whole word of God. If God commands all men, everywhere to repent, does He mean what He says, or merely all the elect? What right have we to add to, or alter, to pare down, or to accommodate the word of God? None whatever. Let us face scripture as it stands, and reject everything which will not stand the test. We may well call in question the soundness of a system which cannot meet the full force of the word of God as a whole. If passages of scripture seem to clash, it is only because of our ignorance. Let us humbly own this, and wait on God for further light. This, we may depend upon it, is safe moral ground to occupy. Instead of endeavouring to reconcile apparent discrepancies, let us bow at the Master's feet and justify Him in all His sayings. Thus shall we reap a harvest of blessing and grow in the knowledge of God and His word as a whole.  

A few days since, a friend put into our hands a sermon recently preached by an eminent clergyman belonging to the high school of doctrine. We have found in this sermon, quite as much as in the letter of our American correspondent, the effects of one-sided theology. For instance, in referring to that magnificent statement of the Baptist in John 1:29, the preacher quotes it thus, "The Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the whole world of God's chosen people."  

Reader, think of this. "The world of God's chosen people!" There is not a word about people in the passage. It refers to the great propitiatory work of Christ, in virtue of which every trace of sin shall yet be obliterated from the wide creation of God. We shall only see the full application of that blessed scripture in the new heavens and the new earth wherein dwelleth righteousness. To confine it to the sin of God's elect can only be viewed as the fruit of theological bias. There is no such expression in scripture as "Taking away the sin of God's elect." Whenever God's people are referred to we have the bearing of sins — the propitiation for our sins — the forgiveness of sins. Scripture never confounds these things; and nothing can be more important for our souls than to be exclusively taught by scripture itself, and not by the warping, stunting, withering dogmas of one-sided theology.  

[...]  

NOTE It is deeply interesting to mark the way in which scripture guards against the repulsive doctrine of reprobation. Look, for example, at Matthew 25:34. Here, the King, in addressing those on His right hand, says, "Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world." Contrast with this the address to those on his left hand: "Depart from me ye cursed [He does not say 'of my Father'] into everlasting fire, prepared [not for you, but]for the devil and his angels." So also, in Romans 9. In speaking of the "vessels of wrath," He says "fitted to destruction" — fitted not by God surely, but by themselves. On the other hand, when He speaks of the "vessels of mercy," he says, "which He had afore prepared unto glory." The grand truth of election is fully established; the repulsive error of reprobation, sedulously avoided.

Further Reading:

• Don Thorsen, Calvin vs Wesley: Bringing Belief in Line with Practice (Find in a library). You can read a review from Seedbed here, and one from Dr Olson here.

Related Posts:

• Irv Brendlinger, "John Wesley's theological challenge to slavery"
• On Assurance of Salvation and Calvin's “Evanescent Grace”
• Where Did All These Arminians Come From?
• Highlighting an Arminian response to John Piper: D...
• What’s contributing to the increase in “x-Calvinis...