In any case, semi-Calvinism happens when Christians believe that because God is omniscient and sovereign over everything, they don't need to evangelize the lost. "Hyper" is an inappropriate prefix because it implies that the doctrine has been overly embraced; "semi" is an appropriate prefix because anybody who embraces semi-Calvinism only partially understands the doctrines of God's omniscience and sovereignty.
First we'll clear up the confusion, and then we'll explain where it comes from.
I've been saying for years that a coherent Calvinist lives just like the most heretical semi-Pelagian*. However, this sounds like a terrible clashing of theory and practice, so I was very pleased on Sunday to come up with the following two points as a better explanation:
- The doctrines of God's omniscience and sovereignty**, rightly understood, tell you nothing about how to make any practical decision.
This leaves us begging for an answer to the practical question, however: if the doctrines of God's omniscience and sovereignty utterly fail to inform our life choices, what else could possibly tell us how to live?
- The Bible is sufficient for faith and practice; all practical decisions should be made in light of its teachings.
Now you see the connection to my previous explanation -- even Pelagius thought that Christ was a great moral teacher, so if coherent Calvinists and all stripes of Arminians and semi-Pelagians strive to live by biblical teachings, then it is clear that a coherent Calvinist lives just like the most heretical semi-Pelagian, as odd as that may sound.
But how can the above conclusion be correct? "If God is absolutely omniscient and sovereign," the semi-Calvinist says, "then He's already predestined some people to Heaven and the rest to Hell, and nothing I can do will change that...so I needn't bother to evangelize the lost." While our confused Christian has rightly concluded that God's omniscience and sovereignty imply final predestination, she has failed to recognize the implications of God's omniscience and sovereignty throughout all time, including the entire duration of His creation. So of course the semi-Calvinists are predestined to disregard the Great Commission, just as they are predestined to be doctrinally confused.
God is sovereign, but He works his will through his creation, so also through his saints. He commanded us to "go into all the world and preach the Gospel", and fulfilling this mandate clearly works his will on Earth. "Ah-ha!", the semi-Pelagian might now say. "But failing to fulfill this mandate also works God's will, because if God is sovereign then everything that happens must be his will!"
This sounds quite convincing, but it rests squarely on an equivocation of the concept of "God's will". In just the same way, a semi-Pelagian may argue, 2 Peter 3:9 clearly states that "...the Lord is...not willing that any should perish." As Sproul explains in Chosen By God*** there are three different senses of God's will discussed in the Bible.
- sovereign efficacious will
- preceptive will (commandments, etc.)
- reference to God's disposition, or what pleases Him
God's sovereign efficacious will is by definition inviolate, so 2 Peter 3:9 clearly cannot be referring to this sense of God's will; it is in this sense alone that a semi-Calvinist "fulfills God's will" by refusing to evangelize the lost.
God's preceptive will is clearly violated continually (just look around), but if this is the meaning of "God's will" as it is discussed in 2 Peter 3:9, this passage would then be commanding everyone not to perish. So those who violate this understanding of 2 Peter 3:9 and perish anyway would need to stand under God's judgment and be punished by...more perishing. This is clearly not what 2 Peter 3:9 could mean. A semi-Calvinist violates this sense of God's will when she refuses to evangelize the lost.
We know that God is not pleased when people perish (He is also not pleased when semi-Calvinists refuse to evangelize the lost). The third sense of "God's will" seems to be the appropriate sense in which to understand 2 Peter 3:9****, and we find that along the way to this discovery we've rooted out the semi-Calvinist's equivocation as well.
The semi-Calvinist also misunderstands the relationship between sovereignty and omniscience. The semi-Calvinist is not omniscient; she is inescapably part of creation, living within its time and standing under God's sovereignty. Knowing that the future is predestined cannot possibly impact her decision-making given that our semi-Calvinist doesn't know how the future is predestined to be. Because we are ignorant of the future and part of the system of God's sovereignty, we can do nothing other than make the best decisions we can based on what we know of the past and present and in the light of scripture. Only a confused understanding of God's omniscience and sovereignty could lead us to believe otherwise.
* Protestants who aren't Calvinists frequently identify themselves as "Arminians", but given the way they talk about prayer and free will they are much more in line with the fifth-century heretic Pelagius (see also). Taking my cue from R.C. Sproul's Chosen By God, I will refer to non-Calvinists as "semi-Pelagians".
** The way I understand God's sovereignty is called "theistic determinism". This entire discussion actually holds for all forms of determinism, theistic, agnostic, and atheistic.
*** Chosen By God. R.C. Sproul, 1986. Thomas Nelson, Inc. p 195-197.
**** Sproul goes on to mention that the antecedent of "any" in 2 Peter 3:9 is likely the Lord's Elect, in which case (by definition) none of them will perish, "God's will" in the passage refers to His sovereign efficacious will, and the verse is a strong affirmation of Calvinism.
