Based on Dallas Willard’s writings and reflections from those who knew him, Willard generally viewed John Calvin with respect but often positioned himself outside the standard, dogmatic interpretations of Calvinism.
Regarding speculation in Calvin’s writings, Willard tended to argue that Calvinism—like Arminianism—could become overly involved in speculative doctrine, which he believed distracted from the practical, transformative discipleship to Jesus.
- View on Calvin’s Theology: Willard did not reject Calvin but often found Calvinist and Arminian debates to be restrictive, stating that both camps were “right, and both were wrong”.
- “Sufficient” Depravity: When asked about the Calvinist doctrine of Total Depravity, Willard often replied, “I believe in sufficient depravity, where we are wicked enough where we can never boast or claim merit from our choice to follow Jesus”.
- Focus on Transformation over Speculation: Willard argued that when Calvinism focuses solely on legalistic or doctrinal positions (speculation), it misses the essential message of life transformation, self-denial, and practical living.
- Relationship-Based Theology: Willard’s perspective was far more relational than transactional, often arguing that framing God’s will and election as a rigid, legally determined “arrangement” (which he sometimes saw in Calvinist writing) misunderstood the relational nature of God.
- Respect for Calvin: Despite these critiques, Willard was known to have read all of Calvin’s work and agreed with major portions, occasionally referring to himself as “pretty Calvinistic” in a deeper sense, **
while opposing the rigid fatalism often associated with modern Calvinist thought.
**
With that said…did many Protestant churches get it wrong? And because they did…did that take away from salvation- the everyday life we receive from God? Yes
So please share..point it out…that I’m doing something against the word? Show me so I can repent.
I agree, @Corlove, completely. You’ve summarized my thoughts well.
@Corlove13, I’m a Calvinist, but I see a great variety of positions under that umbrella. I prefer to stick with the Scriptures themselves without unbiblical speculation, which is what Calvin’s Institutes does.
For my own studies, the phrase “Total Depravity,” which can mislead people, should really be called “Pervasive Depravity,” because it better describes the Bible’s emphasis on the evil that has pervaded every area of unbelievers’ lives, not that we are completely sinful. Jesus has provided the means for us to make spiritual progress to become less pervasively sinful.
Yes. Critics and some scholars argue that John Calvin’s Institutes of the Christian Religion engages in speculation by going beyond what is directly stated in Scripture, particularly when constructing his system of predestination and presenting “the secret things” of God’s hidden counsel, such as determining the fall of man.
- Systematizing Mystery: Critics argue that Calvin moves from biblical description to metaphysical speculation by asserting that God not only foresaw the fall of Adam, but ordained it.
- “Secret Things” as Dogma: In Book III, Calvin discusses the eternal decree of God—who is chosen and who is damned—with a level of certainty that some argue treats God’s hidden, secret will as revealed, speculative doctrine.
- Determinism: Critics claim Calvin’s view of providence, where every act is a deliberate execution of a divine script, is a logical speculation that collapses the distinction between God’s permission of evil and His authorization of it.
…
Dallas Willard (1935–2013) argued that a major “problem” in Western Christianity, particularly within certain Calvinist and Evangelical traditions, is a reductionist understanding of salvation that equates it solely with justification—the forgiveness of sins and assurance of heaven. Willard believed this starting point misses the deeper meaning of salvation, which is transformation into the likeness of Christ and participation in the Kingdom of God.
The Problem: Salvation as “Sin Management”
Willard argued that when salvation is reduced to just justification, it leads to several issues:
- Passive Faith: It creates a “nominal” Christianity where discipleship is separated from being “saved,” leading to a passivity that suggests personal actions do not matter.
- Justification-Centricity: It assumes that being saved is entirely about forgiveness rather than becoming a new person.
- Dualism: It creates a false separation between justification (forgiveness) and sanctification (growth in holiness), treating them as separate steps rather than one continuous, holistic process.
You have an interesting critique of Calvin, @Corlove, and the dangers of emphasizing justification over other aspects of salvation. There’s truth in Dallas Willard’s criticism.
However, Calvin’s emphasis was and is necessary in his age and ours, since humans always want to take at least some credit for their faith, especially, in Calvin’s case, with the works emphasis of the Roman Catholics in his day.
Also, there is a de-emphasis on God’s justice today, whereas we really need a balance in our consideration both of God’s mercy and his justice.
Calvinists that I know do not just blindly follow Calvin but also learn from people like Dallas Willard about sanctification, for example. I studied the Institutes for a semester and found no doctrinal speculation beyond the Bible, the way those critics seem to disagree with Calvin. If you haven’t read the Institutes of the Christian Religion, you might find God’s blessing in reading it, and you might find that some critics have not understood Calvin’s theology very well.
Most Calvinists follow Calvin’s rule of going as far as the Bible goes and then stopping. In the process, we accept the mysteries of the Bible.
If you say so…point is He speculates and goes beyond what is given Biblically.
Give me some quotes from the Institutes in context please to back up your charge, @Corlove13.
In Institutes of the Christian Religion, John Calvin occasionally moves beyond direct scripture exposition into theological speculation, particularly regarding the inner workings of the Trinity, the sensus divinitatis (sense of deity), and the mechanics of God’s providence. These speculative moments often address the “why” or “how” of divine actions.
Key Speculative Quotes:
- On the Inner Workings of the Spirit: “The Spirit was at work cherishing the confused mass [before creation]…to prevent its being instantly annihilated” (Institutes 1.13.14).
- On the Sensus Divinitatis (Innate Knowledge): “There is within the human mind, and indeed by natural instinct, an awareness of divinity [sensus divinitatis]. This we take to be beyond controversy” (Institutes 1.3.1).
- On God’s Hidden Counsel: “…God by His eternal and immutable counsel determined once for all those whom it was His pleasure one day to admit to salvation, and those whom, on the other hand, it was His pleasure to doom to destruction” (Institutes 3.21.5).
- On the Mechanism of Providence: “The sum of the whole is this–since the will of God is said to be the cause of all things, all the counsels and actions of men must be held to be governed by his providence” (Institutes 1.18.2).
- On Christ’s Humanity: “In this way, and in this meaning, I deny not that Christ, as he is God and man, justifies us; that this work is common also to the Father and the Holy Spirit” (Institutes 3.11.10).
These examples demonstrate Calvin interpreting divine, eternal, and often invisible realities to formulate a structured doctrine of God, often going beyond what is explicitly stated in a single verse to a logical theological conclusion.
You have a good point, @Corlove13, and I agree with you that these quotes go beyond Scripture. Not all Calvinists agree with everything Calvin wrote, and I’m one of them. I haven’t studied the Institutes since the late ‘70s. Thanks for bringing these quotes to my attention; I agree with much of what Calvin wrote but not all of it.
For example, most Calvinists nowadays would say that it was God’s permissive will to allow sin and evil to exist instead of his causing them to prosper. Therefore, he is not responsible for their actions; for example, he allowed Satan to attack Job for his good fatherly teaching of the man, but Satan is responsible (Job 1 and 2).
1 Like