The Myth of ‘Extreme’ vs. ‘Moderate’ Calvinism: A False Dichotomy?

Introduction: The Calvinist-Arminian Spectrum

Theological debates often frame Calvinism and Arminianism as opposing systems. Norman Geisler’s Chosen But Free proposes a “moderate Calvinism” as a middle ground, claiming to balance divine sovereignty and human free will. However, this article argues that Geisler’s “moderate Calvinism” is functionally Arminian, exposing inconsistencies in blending free will with divine determinism. The supposed divide between “extreme” and “moderate” Calvinism collapses under biblical and theological scrutiny.

Defining the Terms

1. Historic Calvinism (TULIP):
   • Unconditional Election (U): God elects individuals based solely on His will, not foreseen faith or merit (Eph. 1:4–5).
   • Monergism: Salvation is entirely God’s work, from election to regeneration.
2. Geisler’s “Moderate Calvinism”:
   • Claims allegiance to Calvinism but redefines election as “conditional” on God’s foreknowledge of human faith (1 Pet. 1:2, misread as foreseen faith).
   • Affirms free will’s role in salvation, rejecting monergism for synergism (God and man cooperate).

Why “Moderate Calvinism” is Functionally Arminian

1. Conditional Election:
   • Geisler ties election to God’s foreknowledge of human faith (CBF, p. 52–54), mirroring Arminianism’s conditional election.
   • Biblical Rebuttal: Romans 9:11–16 explicitly rejects foreseen merits or faith as grounds for election. Jacob and Esau were chosen “before they had done anything good or bad.”
2. Synergistic Grace:
   • Geisler argues faith is a “non-meritorious condition” for salvation (CBF, p. 234), implying human cooperation.
   • Theological Inconsistency: If faith is a “gift” (Eph. 2:8), it cannot be a precondition. Reformed theology affirms faith as a divine grant, not a human contribution.
3. God’s Sovereignty Compromised:
   • Geisler claims God “determines” salvation only in the sense of knowing human choices (passive determination), not decreeing them (CBF, p. 73).
   • Contrast: Romans 9:19–24 portrays God as the Potter, actively shaping vessels for His purposes, not merely observing free choices.

Exposing the Inconsistencies

1. Logical Contradictions:
   • If God’s election is based on foreseen faith, human will becomes the ultimate cause of salvation, undermining divine sovereignty. This is Arminianism, not Calvinism.
   • As James White notes in The Potter’s Freedom:“A ‘moderate Calvinism’ that conditions election on foreseen faith is no Calvinism at all—it is Semipelagianism masquerading as Reformed theology” (The Potter’s Freedom, p. 121).
2. Misuse of 1 Peter 1:2:
   • Geisler cites “elect according to foreknowledge” (1 Pet. 1:2) to support conditional election.
   • Exegesis: “Foreknowledge” (Gr. prognōsis) in Scripture refers to God’s covenantal love, not passive foresight (cf. Amos 3:2; Jer. 1:5).
3. Evangelical Fatalism:
   • By denying God’s active decree, Geisler’s view risks making evangelism futile—if God only “knows” outcomes, He cannot sovereignly secure salvation.

Conclusion: No Middle Ground

The “moderate Calvinism” of Geisler collapses into Arminianism, importing human free will into the mechanism of salvation. Historic Calvinism and Arminianism are mutually exclusive:

• Calvinism: Salvation is monergistic—God alone saves.
• Arminianism: Salvation is synergistic—man cooperates.

Romans 11:5–6 dismantles the hybrid:

“If by grace, then it is no longer by works; otherwise grace would no longer be grace.”

Geisler’s “moderate Calvinism” cannot reconcile unconditional election with free will. The biblical witness leaves no room for a middle path: God is either the Potter, or He is not.