The Gospel Without Limits

Why I Cannot Embrace Calvinism’s Doctrines of Election and Atonement

A Pastoral Response to a Popular Theology

By Dr. Robert C. Crowder

A Personal Journey Through Doctrinal Chaos

Theology shapes everything: how we view God, how we preach the gospel, and how we shepherd the souls entrusted to our care. For many years, I wrestled with the doctrines of Calvinism. I studied the five points. I heard the passionate defenses. And at different stages of my journey, I tried to find a place within the framework, wavering between being a “one-point” or “two-point” Calvinist. There was a time when the arguments for total depravity or perseverance of the saints sounded convincing, and I wondered if perhaps I could hold on to the parts that seemed biblically defensible while leaving the rest behind.

But the result was not clarity: it was confusion. My theology and doctrine fragmented. My understanding of salvation, evangelism, and the character of God became a patchwork of tension. Calvinism, rather than grounding me, unsettled me. The deeper I tinkered with its framework, the more chaos it caused in my theology. And then, in a moment of spiritual clarity, the Holy Spirit reminded me of a truth I had long known but temporarily lost sight of: “God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints” (1 Corinthians 14:33). That realization changed everything.

From that point forward, I stopped trying to force-fit pieces of Calvinism into my doctrine. I went back to Scripture, studied with fresh eyes, and sought the plain teaching of God’s Word apart from manmade systems. What I found was a gospel without limits. I found a Savior who died for all, a call that goes out to all, and a God who invites all to believe. This article is not simply a theological rebuttal; it is a personal declaration born from struggle, Scripture, and finally, spiritual clarity.

Theological systems, while helpful for organizing doctrinal thought, must always be evaluated against the unchanging authority of the Word of God. Among these systems, Calvinism has been one of the most influential and polarizing frameworks within the broader Christian tradition. Its five points, often summarized in the acronym TULIP, present a tightly woven system that emphasizes the sovereignty of God, the depravity of man, and the predestined nature of salvation.

While many of my fellow believers embrace Calvinism with sincerity and conviction, I do not. I do not reject Calvinism because I disregard God’s sovereignty, nor because I deny the seriousness of sin or the necessity of grace. Rather, I reject Calvinism because I find that its doctrinal claims do not align with the full counsel of Scripture. The Word of God presents a broader and more gracious invitation—one that preserves divine sovereignty without compromising the reality of human responsibility or the genuine offer of salvation to all people.

What follows is a theological and pastoral response, a declaration of why I, as a Bible-believing, dispensational, conservative Baptist, cannot embrace the Calvinist system.

1. Limited Atonement: A Narrow View of the Cross

One of the central tenets of Calvinism is the doctrine of limited atonement, which asserts that Jesus Christ died only for the elect, those chosen by God before the foundation of the world. According to this view, Christ’s atoning sacrifice was both sufficient and effective only for those whom God has predestined to save.

But Scripture consistently teaches a broader, more inclusive view of the atonement. Christ’s death did not have limited scope; rather, he freely offered it to all humankind. The Apostle John declares:

“And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world” (1 John 2:2).

Paul echoes this same truth:

“Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time” (1 Timothy 2:6).

To assert that Christ’s death was only for a predetermined few is to diminish the love of God as revealed in the gospel. The message of the cross is one of universal provision: not universal salvation, but a genuine offer to every sinner. The Calvinist doctrine of limited atonement, contrary to clear biblical statements, undermines the gospel’s sincere invitation and portrays a Christ whose blood wasn’t shed for everyone.

2. Predestination and Election: Denial of True Human Responsibility

The Calvinist understanding of unconditional election teaches that before creation, God chose certain individuals for salvation apart from any consideration of faith, response, or foreknowledge. According to this view, God’s sovereign choice is the only factor in determining who is saved and who is not.

While I affirm the biblical doctrine of election, I believe Calvinism misrepresents its nature. The Bible teaches that election is according to foreknowledge:

“Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ…” (1 Peter 1:2).

God, in His omniscience, foreknew who would respond in faith to the gospel. Election, then, is not arbitrary or disconnected from human response. It is consistent with God’s omniscient understanding of who would believe.

Scripture affirms both God’s sovereignty and man’s responsibility. Paul writes:

“Whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved” (Romans 10:13).

That “whosoever” is a real offer. If election were unconditional in the Calvinist sense, this invitation would be disingenuous. The call to repent and believe extends to everyone;  God holds people accountable for their response. Calvinism’s denial of meaningful human choice turns salvation into a closed system, rather than a divine invitation.

3. Double Predestination: A Distortion of God’s Justice and Mercy

The doctrine of double predestination, that God actively chooses some for salvation and others for damnation. This point is perhaps one of the most troubling aspects of Calvinism. According to this view, just as God elects some to eternal life, He also, by sovereign decree, predestines others to eternal destruction. This is not merely a passive allowance of unbelief, but an active determination.

I reject this view as fundamentally incompatible with the character of God as revealed in Scripture. The Lord is not willing that any should perish:

“The Lord is… not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance” (2 Peter 3:9).

God’s justice is always righteous, and His mercy is extended broadly. Nowhere in Scripture are we told that God delights in the destruction of the wicked. In fact, quite the opposite:

“Have I any pleasure at all that the wicked should die? saith the Lord God: and not that he should return from his ways, and live?” (Ezekiel 18:23).

To suggest that God created some people solely to damn them is to charge the Holy One with injustice. This view contradicts the moral nature of God and undermines the sincerity of His love for the world (John 3:16).

4. The Problem of Evil: Misplaced Responsibility and Theological Confusion

Calvinism teaches that God ordains everything that happens, good or evil. This includes the fall of man, every act of rebellion, every injustice, and every tragedy. While this is offered as a defense of divine sovereignty, it raises troubling questions about the origin of evil and the moral responsibility of man.

James speaks plainly:

“Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man” (James 1:13).

If God ordains evil for His own purposes, yet punishes those who commit it, how can He be just? The Calvinist view collapses the distinction between what God permits and what He causes. Scripture is clear that man is responsible for his sin and that God, though sovereign, does not author evil.

God’s sovereignty includes His ability to work through and even in spite of evil, without being its source. Joseph’s words to his brothers are a powerful example:

“Ye thought evil against me; but God meant it unto good…” (Genesis 50:20).

There is a world of difference between permitting evil and predetermining it. Calvinism’s failure to recognize this distinction leads to confusion and theological distortion.

5. An Imbalanced Emphasis on Sovereignty: Missing the Heart of God

While Calvinism elevates God’s sovereignty, and rightly so, it often does so at the expense of His other attributes, such as love, mercy, compassion, and relational intimacy. Calvinists present God as a divine monarch whose decrees are final and impersonal, instead of as a Shepherd who seeks the lost, a Father who runs to the prodigal, and a Savior who weeps over Jerusalem.

The God of the Bible invites relationship:

“Come now, and let us reason together, saith the Lord…” (Isaiah 1:18).

“Behold, I stand at the door, and knock…” (Revelation 3:20).

The Calvinist framework places such heavy emphasis on God’s unilateral decrees that it leaves little room for divine responsiveness or human interaction. We must uphold God’s sovereignty, but we should not isolate it from His goodness, tenderness, or longing for fellowship with His creation.

6. Tensions with Arminianism: Holding a Balanced Biblical Perspective

Calvinism and Arminianism represent two sides of a historical theological debate. While I do not fully subscribe to Arminianism, I believe it more accurately preserves the balance between God’s initiative and human responsibility.

Arminian theology affirms prevenient grace, that God draws all men and enables them to respond, though He does not compel them. This aligns better with the biblical call for repentance and the frequent “whosoever” invitations throughout Scripture:

“And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely” (Revelation 22:17).

Calvinism, by contrast, leaves the human will powerless, effectively making man a passive recipient rather than an active responder. The biblical model is neither fatalism nor humanism—it is a glorious partnership, initiated by grace, embraced by faith.

Conclusion: A Gospel Too Good to Limit

My rejection of Calvinism was not reactionary; it was the end of a long and sincere struggle. I tried to make peace with it. I attempted to be a partial adherent, a one- or two-point Calvinist. But every time I made room for even a fragment of its system, the result was doctrinal confusion and spiritual unrest. Calvinism did not bring harmony to my theology. It brought chaos. The more I sought clarity, the more entangled I became in contradictions about God’s love, His justice, and the genuine offer of the gospel.

But God is not the author of confusion. He is the God of light, truth, and order. Once I grasped that foundational truth, I stopped trying to build on the shaky foundation of manmade categories. I returned to the clear, consistent message of Scripture: Jesus Christ tasted death for every man (Hebrews 2:9). The grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to all men (Titus 2:11). Whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved (Romans 10:13).

Today, I hold to a gospel that is unlimited in its provision and sincere in its invitation. I do not deny God’s sovereignty: I rejoice in it. But I see no contradiction in a God who reigns supremely and yet lovingly offers salvation to all. This is the gospel I preach. This is the doctrine I defend. And this is the peace I now enjoy.

Bibliography

Beacham, Roy E., and Kevin T. Bauder, eds. One Bible, Many Versions: Are All Translations Created Equal? Grand Rapids: Kregel Academic, 2011.

Geisler, Norman L. Chosen but Free: A Balanced View of Divine Election. 3rd ed. Minneapolis: Bethany House Publishers, 2010.

Hutmacher, Robert P. Biblical Answers to Calvinistic Theology: A Biblical and Logical Rebuttal of the Doctrines of Grace. La Vergne, TN: Lightning Source, 2014.

Ironside, H. A. Wrongly Dividing the Word of Truth: Ultra-Dispensationalism Examined in the Light of Holy Scripture. Neptune, NJ: Loizeaux Brothers, 1938.

Lightner, Robert P. The Death Christ Died: A Biblical Case for Unlimited Atonement. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications, 1998.

Lightner, Robert P. Evangelical Theology: A Survey and Review. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1986.

MacDonald, William. Salvation: God’s Marvelous Work of Grace. Kansas City: Walterick Publishers, 1972.

Ryrie, Charles C. Basic Theology: A Popular Systematic Guide to Understanding Biblical Truth. Chicago: Moody Press, 1999.

Ryrie, Charles C. So Great Salvation: What It Means to Believe in Jesus Christ. Chicago: Moody Press, 1997.

Showers, Renald E. There Really Is a Difference!: A Comparison of Covenant and Dispensational Theology. Bellmawr, NJ: The Friends of Israel Gospel Ministry, 1990.

Smith, Fred G. Calvinism and the Problem of Evil. Clovis, CA: Independent Baptist Press, 2015.

Spurgeon, Charles H. A Defense of Calvinism. While Spurgeon was himself a Calvinist, his writings are often cited by Calvinists as authoritative; they are noted here for contrast and reference purposes.

Thiessen, Henry Clarence. Lectures in Systematic Theology. Revised by Vernon D. Doerksen. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1979.

Wiersbe, Warren W. The God You Can Trust. Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2002.

Wiersbe, Warren W. Be Series Commentary (NT and Selected OT Volumes). Colorado Springs: David C. Cook, 1989–2004.