Steven L. Hitchcock

Steven Hitchcock has written a thick book on why he, a Calvinist of 20 years, has decided to recant Calvinism in favor of what he calls a dynamic gospel. He starts off with a story about how he came to Calvinism, his story is eerily similar to mine. He came across Calvinism early on in his faith, while he still had a fresh zeal for reaching others with the gospel. He talks about how finding out about Calvinism and its supposed strong scriptural arguments sent him spiraling into a sort of darkness, I can relate to this feeling. When I first read “What is Reformed Theology?” by R.C. Sproul, I threw the book at my bedroom wall while reading it. I didn’t want it to be true. I want to first state that I am using the Kindle edition that doesn’t provide page numbers, so my citations will be location numbers. The first part of the book that struck me as odd happened really soon, it was in the introduction. Hitchcock states:

“We ought to stop and question a gospel that proclaims, ‘the wonder is not that He withholds mercy from some, but that He should be gracious to any.It sounds so spiritual, so humble, so weighty, and awesome, and yet it is a lie.”(Loc 136)

His reasoning for this is that “because of Calvinism we have come to think…God’s willingness to be gracious is more unlikely than likely.” I found this strange. When the Calvinist says that we should marvel at the fact that God has offered salvation at all, we are not talking probabilities and statistics. We are talking about how undeserving we are of God’s grace. It is truly unmerited favor, and if it is unmerited, I see no problem with saying we are undeserving and we shouldn’t expect it. God doesn’t owe us salvation.

This is not a statement against God’s loving and gracious nature, it is a condemnation of our sin. I think brother Hitchcock has taken this statement somewhere I’ve never seen it used. Perhaps his local congregations talked about it in this way or this is how he personally understood it, but I agree with him that if someone were to view it that way, it could be problematic. Salvation isn’t a matter of chance, a Calvinist of all theological persuasions should know that. (Given that determinism, whether soft or not, doesn’t really allow for any meaningful concept of chance.) The first section of the book is a re-telling of some key events in the gospels. Hitchcock is sure to emphasize the forgiving nature of Jesus, in such instances as the woman caught in adultery in John 8. He shows how that gospel was presented in the Old Testament and he seems to be building a structured foundation by which we preach the gospel and what it is, against the Calvinist claim that “Calvinism is the gospel.” Look, I don’t like using that term because it is prone to confusion and can sound really arrogant. Imagine for a moment, you tell someone that your soteriological view is the gospel, by necessity you’re saying that your view is the only right one. On top of that, doesn’t you saying your view is gospel mean that their view isn’t? On the other hand, most Calvinists aren’t saying that. They’re merely saying that Calvinism, in particular the five points, are the background of the gospel. Meaning, TULIP encompasses total depravity, unconditional election, Limited atonement, Irresistible Grace and Perseverance of the Saints pretty much takes you from beginning to end.

The Arguments
Now we will get into the arguments he presents against Calvinism. The first contention he has is that the Ordu Salutis is all messed up in a Calvinist system. He says that Calvinists make foreknowledge and predestination synonymous while they are distinct. He says that to reconcile the differences between Calvinists and Arminians on this subject is to understand God’s relationship with time. He states that “All time is present time to God.” This is helpful because it lets the reader understand what position he is taking on God’s relationship to time. He echoes Augustine by saying that the world was “not created in time but with time.“(Loc 1261) He emphasizes that foreknowledge is based on human action(e.g. “it is only in our loving him that we came to be known by him“, so while his position is distinct from a simple foreknowledge view he does not escape the Calvinist contention about this view being man-centered as well as the standard critiques against synergism. Hitchcock goes through the golden chain of redemption in Romans 8 and seeks to cut the chain off. Strangely enough, he says that the calling itself isn’t salvation but is something that requires a faithful response. Again, if we are speaking technically, the Calvinist doesn’t deny this, a faith response is necessary, the question is, is that faith something you do on your own (perhaps assisted by prevenient grace) or is it a gift from God?

I do think there is a difference, because if there is any merit involved whatsoever, I do not think we can meaningful call it a gift. Perhaps it would be better worded as a reward if it was merited! The next argument he presents is his own acrostic, I am familiar with certain people trying to come up with other acronyms, but unfortunately for them, they never stick as well as TULIP does. He gives a helpful little chart in the text where he shows his five counterpoints to TULIP. However, his five points are nothing like the five points of the remonstrance. At first glance, they seem like all non-sequiturs. They go as follows. Instead of Total Depravity,Unconditional Election, Limited Atonement, Irresistible Grace and Perseverance of the Saints, you have Simple Faith, In Christ, General Resurrection, New Covenant and Sustained by Faith. That would make his acronym SIGNS, which has not caught on to my knowledge, as this is the first I’ve ever heard of it and his book is several years old. After the chart, he goes through each, point by point. I think he accurately portrays Total Depravity as a central point in Calvinism. This is because not only is it a starting point, but having a biblical anthropology is crucial to having a biblical soteriology. Understanding the human condition is very relevant to how you understand God’s relationship to us.

The problem I have with his simple faith defense, is I don’t see how it is any different. He makes a theological blunder regarding Romans 3:23 however. Surprisingly enough, Hitchcock misrepresents the Calvinist position here, or at the very least, does not acknowledge that the view he labels “The Calvinist view” isn’t a monolithic one. He basically says that the Calvinist is saying everyone is not righteous absolutely. Perhaps some believe that, however, I haven’t met or read a Calvinist who thinks that. Hitchcock talks about Romans 3:23 not applying to those who are in the Spirit (i.e. In Christ) and I generally agree. I think Romans 3:23 does apply to the Christian, however, as more of a reminder of our own condition, not that our present state is one of unrighteousness. The Prophet Isaiah said our righteousness is like filthy rags (Isaiah 64:6) the only difference now is we have a savior with a clean rag. He also makes an assumption about the Calvinist’s eschatology, by saying that the majority of people will die and go to hell in the scheme of human history. I don’t believe that. I believe that since God monergistically saves along with my eschatology of hope(Postmil), that there will be more in heaven than in hell at the end. Otherwise, if Synergism is true, you have that terrible meme that says God votes for you and the devil votes against you and you have the deciding vote actually make sense in your scheme. We arrive at a section in his book where he calls an argument “The Calvinist’s strongest“. He states that the strongest argument is the Calvinist interpretation of John chapter 6, regarding Jesus’ teaching about who comes to Him.

With all due respect to Mr. Hitchcock, his alternative view of John 6 is severely lacking.He goes straight to John 12, ignoring the different context and assumes that Jesus is mainly answering the Pharisees who are actively trying to catch him in some sort of wrongdoing. His overall argument is one of prevenient grace, as he says that no one can come to Jesus without the Father drawing that person to him but he says the text has no further implication than that. I don’t think this is a sufficient response. Reducing John 6 to merely an acknowledgement that God is involved in salvation takes away the brunt and force of Jesus’ teaching in John 6. If Jesus was merely teaching that the Father draws those who come to him, there wouldn’t be much controversy surrounding it. This teaching would certainly not overshadow Jesus’ claim to be the messiah. However, if Jesus was teaching that not only is he the messiah, but the Father draws and you can’t come to him unless the Father does, that hits the Pharisees a lot harder, which would explain their reactions. This isn’t an exegetical argument, but it is worth considering that the view Hitchcock has presented leaves a lot to be desired. Later on, he makes another theological blunder when he argues that Faith isn’t a gift. He focuses on Ephesians 2:8-9, however his argument doesn’t seem to hold very well to me. He breaks it up so much that Paul is teaching rather awkwardly and choppy, and it doesn’t make sense grammatically. We can talk all day about pistis being feminine and touto being neuter, however, this ignores the entire argument.

The Calvinist isn’t saying that Ephesians 2:8-9 is saying that the noun faith is a gift, but the act of believing. What makes best sense of the text grammatically is seeing Ephesians 2:8-9 as “by grace you have been saved by faith” “and that not of yourselves” (referring to what he just said.) Strangely enough, Hitchcock argues that Faith is neither a gift nor a work. Yet, if Faith is not a gift but something we do, how is it not a work? Unless you are looking to redefine the word “work” for its negative connotations around justification and the like, there doesn’t seem to be a third option here. I think when Calvinists say that this Faith is a work it is radically misunderstood. The Calvinist isn’t saying that answering God’s call is something they is hard to do (though it can be.) The key issue is whether or not you say you played a part in your salvation, is your salvation dependent on the fact that you decided to follow Jesus? Is your decision the effectual light switch that turned the light of the world into your heart? Now, I don’t go around and call everyone a Pelagian or Semi-Pelagian. But by Hitchcock’s own definition of semi-pelagianism later on in the book, he is one. He quotes Cassian, “it is mine to be willing to believe, and it is the part of God’s grace to assist.” Now while the typical Classical Arminian would not phrase it this way, without careful distinctions, a believer leaning towards Arminianism can easily fall into Semi-Pelagianism. This is why Calvinists then and now still use this accusation, because it rings true for some Arminians. He goes through the other four points of Calvinist, but each time he doesn’t offer any other objections than what is common to Arminianism, despite avoiding the label. Though I thought the idea that Limited atonement was too simplistic of an answer was an interesting problem to have with it. He also gives an exegesis of Romans 9-11, but again, there wasn’t much of a difference in his conclusions than you would read from an Arminian exegete.

Conclusion
I obviously didn’t address every single argument and some arguments I glossed over and simply acknowledged. This is because I don’t think it is necessary to rehash the same old arguments every chance I get to. I’m not a fan of blog series and I didn’t want to make this book ridiculously long, so I only addressed unique points or what I saw important to discuss. I commend Mr. Hitchcock for taking the time to write such a long volume on what convicts him. I am happy he has found a new love for his Faith, and I am happy that he had a measured approach to this book for the most part. He clearly has his heart in this and doesn’t seek to rile Calvinists up, but to get them to consider his words. Despite what I think are errors, I recommend this book because it is important to understand those who whom you disagree. As far as books against Calvinism go, it’s probably the best I’ve read.… (meer)