Kid: Can I go to the bathroom?
Teacher: Of course.
[Kid gets up to go to the bathroom.]
Teacher: What are you doing?
Kid:  I’m going to the bathroom.
Teacher: You didn’t have permission. You’re supposed to say “May I go to the bathroom?”
Kid: May I go to the bathroom?
Teacher: Yes.

“Can” means “to be able to.” “May” means “to be allowed to.” I always thought that this distinction was a bit pointless. About twenty or thirty seconds were wasted every other day in elementary school because of this. But recently, I’ve found a way to apply this. I think that the distinction between “can” and “may” answers the Convenience of Calvinism issue. Let me first explain what the Convenience of Calvinism issue is.

Recently, a friend of mine, when asked if he was a Calvinist, said that he was kind of a Calvinist, but not to the extent that he doesn’t evangelize or do good works anymore.

I’ve becoming more and more aware of this camp of Christians who reject Calvinism because they feel that believing in God’s sovereignty would undercut the motivation for doing anything at all. If God knows what we’re going to do, and if God actually has it all planned out for us, then what’s the point of doing anything at all?

And so Calvinists are believed to have taken “the easy way out,” because their beliefs excuse them of doing anything at all. It’s like believing that French fries are healthy but vegetables are not. What a convenient belief. That’s the Convenience of Calvinism.

I think that there are two things wrong with this reasoning.

Firstly, whether or not we agree with something does not correlate with whether or not that something is true. It is unreasonable for me to reject Islam, or atheism, or racism, or the weather, because its effects would seem negative. Similarly, it is unreasonable for somebody to reject Calvinism because its effects would seem negative.

Secondly, I do not believe that divine sovereignty negates human responsibility. I think that they are compatible. How? I do not know. Then why do I think that they are compatible? Because both are clearly taught in the Bible. I think when we find seeming contradictions in the Bible, the solution is not to discard one in favor  of the other, or to veto the “uncomfortable” belief with our emotional gut, but to realize that our understanding and reasoning is too limited to see how they are both true.

Paul touches on this quite a bit throughout Romans, and one interesting verse definitely sheds some light. After talking about how we have received righteousness by grace through Jesus Christ, Paul asks, “What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin that grace may abound?” (Romans 6:1) Here’s the thing. If righteousness is a free gift, then we don’t need to worry about not sinning. We are clean. No matter how much we sin, we will not tarnish the righteousness of Jesus. It’s legitimate to go ahead and do whatever. Is that right?

Read on. “By no means! How can we who died to sin still live in it?” (Romans 6:2) Paul says no. Why? Because we have died to sin, and we cannot live in it. There’s the word. Can. Those who have died to sin cannot live in it. Those who have died to sin are unable to live in it. The issue isn’t about salvation anymore. The issue isn’t about what we may do. The issue is about what we can do. If we are dead to sin, it would be a physical contradiction to live in it.

So let’s rewind. We are clean. No matter how much we sin, we will not tarnish the righteousness of Jesus. But it’s not legitimate to go ahead and do whatever. Why? Because we can’t go ahead and do whatever. We are unable to do whatever. We have a new life that contradicts the old life. We are a “new creation” (2 Corinthians 5:17), a creation that is free from original sin.

I think it’s the same with this Calvinism issue. If a person is using the sovereignty of God as an excuse to do whatever, then I would say that this person doesn’t understand Calvinism, and this person doesn’t even understand Christianity. The Christian does not ask “What may I do?” There is no need, because the answer is everything. 1 Corinthians 10:23 says to the Christian, “‘All things are lawful,’ but not all things are helpful.” The NIV says, “‘Everything is permissible’—but not everything is beneficial.” What a concept. Christians are free to do anything. What freedom! St. Augustine puts it, “Love God, and do what you want.” How does that make sense? Because Christians are not concerned with “the rules,” but they are concerned with whether or not what they do is helpful or beneficial. Because if somebody loved God, that person can only pursue the things of God. If somebody was a Christian, that person can only pursue Christ. It is automatic. It’s like a function. Put in x, and you get y.

Calvinism should not hinder in any way the good works of a Christian, as long as that person is a Christian. And I will argue this. Calvinism should motivate a Christian to do more good works than if he wasn’t a Calvinist.

Calvinists believe that God is sovereign, and God has planned everything from the beginning. That means that every action we take, to the slightest detail, is part of God’s plan. God is divinely leading on our every step. Our actions are not random, but our actions are tied into a divine plan, meaning every single action we perform has a purpose. There is no such action that goes to waste. With this kind of understanding, it will be a joy to do good works. Not only are we doing good works because we are able to do good works, but because we know for sure that our works will be part of God’s plan, and God will use them somehow to glorify Himself.

And so I will go out on a line and say that the reason it’s convenient to be a Calvinist isn’t because Calvinists have more of an excuse to sin, but it’s because Calvinists have more of an excuse to do good.

– Larry