Quick Take:

What happens when a theological system is internally consistent but repeatedly leans on mystery when pressed by real questions?

Calvinism is often praised for its internal coherence. If one begins with total depravity and concludes that humanity is unable to respond to God apart from grace, then irresistible grace follows logically. The system holds together on paper. The tension arises when that system is applied to lived reality, where questions about responsibility, justice, and God’s stated desires persist. Isaiah 55:8–9 is true. God’s thoughts are higher than ours. Yet in practice this passage is frequently used to sidestep unresolved tensions rather than address them. Instead of clarifying how the theology accounts for real world moral responsibility, the appeal to mystery often functions as a way to halt the discussion at precisely the point where the system strains against reality.

Is it an accurate picture of Calvinism?

The aim of this illustration is accuracy rather than critique. It focuses on a recognizable move within Calvinist theology, the appeal to mystery, and asks whether that appeal is being used in a way that genuinely serves truth. To be fair, there are legitimate reasons Calvinists themselves give for appealing to mystery.

Divine Transcendence: Calvinism rightly emphasizes that God is infinite while human understanding is finite. Scripture affirms that God’s ways and thoughts surpass ours, and an appeal to mystery is often used to prevent reducing God to human categories or expectations (Isaiah 55:8–9; Romans 11:33).

Doctrinal Humility: Calvinists frequently appeal to mystery as an expression of humility before Scripture. Rather than forcing philosophical resolution where the Bible does not explicitly provide one, mystery is invoked to preserve multiple biblical affirmations without collapsing them into oversimplification (Deuteronomy 29:29; Job 38:1–4).

Biblical Tension: Scripture itself presents truths in tension, such as divine sovereignty and human responsibility. Calvinists appeal to mystery in order to affirm both realities simultaneously, even when their relationship cannot be fully explained (Acts 2:23; Romans 9:19–21).

Taken together, these reasons show that appealing to mystery is not automatically evasive or unfaithful. It can reflect reverence for God and submission to Scripture where human reasoning reaches its limits.

At the same time, truth must correspond to reality. If a theological claim cannot be meaningfully pictured, explained, or defended without repeatedly retreating to mystery, especially at its most important points, then the question becomes whether that system is offering truth that can be grasped and trusted, or whether it is asking people to rest foundationally on unresolved mystery rather than coherent explanation?