Calvinism?

[Brother Albert R.]

Before I post why I disagree with Calvinists let me ask that all participants post their responses with respect and love. The only area that I want to address is the Sovereignty of God VS. the free-will of man. I do not claim to be an authority on this issue but I was once a Calvinist and now I am not, both then and now I have always been a Christian. I was a Calvinist until I was confronted with the issue of evil and the Sovereignty of God. I could not reconcile the view that accepts the idea that evil was part of the will of God because, as Calvinist claim, "if it was not part of Gods will then it could not exist". That thought repulsed me, because it made a connection between God and evil that I knew could not be. So I began to look at the whole of scripture, rather than piece-mill, and I saw a God who is more repulsed with evil than I. Does God will something that repulses Him...I think not! I am going to post in segments what I have learned through my study and as questions arise I will post more. So here is my first case in point;
Do we have a separate will from Gods' will?

If “NO”, then we must be always pleasing to God because we can only will what He wants.

If “YES” then we must have a distinction between our will and Gods' will.

The distinction is evident in what is viewed as displeasing to God, mainly evil.

Do we, ''will with evil intent''? ''YES''

Does God, ''will with evil intent''? ''NO''

Adam and Eve were perfectly made as they reflected the very image of God, being made in His likeness. When they listened to the evil one and believed that eating off the tree of knowledge of good and evil would make them more like God they ate, rebelled and sinned against their Creator. In doing so they became corrupted images of God. As God is aware of knowing good and evil so also were both Adam and Eves eyes opened to the horrors of evil. Like a computer that is being uploaded with a virus that corrupts its pure and good files so did the upload of information to their minds from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. They exchanged a perfect human likeness of God for a corrupted and imperfect likeness as they became aware of what God knows concerning good and evil. As a computer that does not have the anti-virus program to counter the effects of the virus so we as mere mortals could not handle such knowledge as God is capable of handling without being corrupted by the effects of knowing evil. And like the initial computer that passes on its virus to future computers, we also have been downloaded and tainted with the knowledge of evil passed on by our parents, grand-parents, great grand-parents, all the way back to Adam and Eve. Therefore we are in a constant battle with what we know,...''Oh wretched man that I am, who will save me from this body of death?''. Ergo the promised Deliverer, the Mediating God-man...Jesus the Lamb who preached like a Lion the good news of salvation from eternal destruction. The one who would come to wipe our hard-drives clean, making us once again acceptable to our Creator.



Permission VS. Tolerance

(Alberts' 10 commandments of understanding Gods' Lordship)

1) God tolerates what He does not permit.

2) What God does not permit He calls sin (disobedience).

3) God tolerates sin but God does not give His permission to sin.

4) There is a limit to how much God will tolerate sin before He judges it.

5) Since God is the Sovereign Lord, He is the Supreme Ruler.

6) As Ruler, God establishes boundaries and consequences.

7) God sanctions (officially permits) only good.

8) God does not sanction (officially permits) evil.

9) God exercises His Sovereignty over evil by setting boundaries and consequences.

10) We should never confuse Gods permission and/with Gods tolerance, for when we do we make the mistake of believing God is consenting to evil when He, in reality, is exercising, for a set time, forbearance toward evil.

God bless you,
your brother in Christ,
Albert R.

 

[Andrew]

Before I post why I disagree with Calvinists let me ask that all participants post their responses with respect and love. The only area that I want to address is the Sovereignty of God VS. the free-will of man. I do not claim to be an authority on this issue but I was once a Calvinist and now I am not, both then and now I have always been a Christian. I was a Calvinist until I was confronted with the issue of evil and the Sovereignty of God, I could not reconcile the view that accepts the idea that evil was part of the will of God because if it was not then it could not exist. That thought repulsed me, because it made a connection between God and evil that I knew could not be. So I began to look at the whole of scripture, rather than piece-mill, and I saw a God who is more repulsed with evil than I. Does God will something that repulses Him...I think not! I am going to post in segments what I have learned through my study and as questions arise I will post more. So here is my first case in point;
Do we have a separate will from Gods' will?

If “NO”, then we must be always pleasing to God because we can only will what He wants.

If “YES” then we must have a distinction between our will and Gods' will.

The distinction is evident in what is viewed as displeasing to God, mainly evil.

Do we, ''will with evil intent''? ''YES''

Does God, ''will with evil intent''? ''NO''

Adam and Eve were perfectly made as they reflected the very image of God, being made in His likeness. When they listened to the evil one and believed that eating off the tree of knowledge of good and evil would make them more like God they ate, rebelled and sinned against their Creator. In doing so they became corrupted images of God. As God is aware of knowing good and evil so also were both Adam and Eves eyes opened to the horrors of evil. Like a computer that is being uploaded with a virus that corrupts its pure and good files so did the upload of information to their minds from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. They exchanged a perfect human likeness of God for a corrupted and imperfect likeness as they became aware of what God knows concerning good and evil. As a computer that does not have the anti-virus program to counter the effects of the virus so we as mere mortals could not handle such knowledge as God is capable of handling without being corrupted by the effects of knowing evil. And like the initial computer that passes on its virus to future computers, we also have been downloaded and tainted with the knowledge of evil passed on by our parents, grand-parents, great grand-parents, all the way back to Adam and Eve. Therefore we are in a constant battle with what we know,...''Oh wretched man that I am, who will save me from this body of death?''. Ergo the promised Deliverer, the Mediating God-man...Jesus the Lamb who preached like a Lion the good news of salvation from eternal destruction. The one who would come to wipe our hard-drives clean, making us once again acceptable to our Creator.



Permission VS. Tolerance

(Alberts' 10 commandments of understanding Gods' Lordship)

1) God tolerates what He does not permit.

2) What God does not permit He calls sin (disobedience).

3) God tolerates sin but God does not give His permission to sin.

4) There is a limit to how much God will tolerate sin before He judges it.

5) Since God is the Sovereign Lord, He is the Supreme Ruler.

6) As Ruler, God establishes boundaries and consequences.

7) God sanctions (officially permits) only good.

8) God does not sanction (officially permits) evil.

9) God exercises His Sovereignty over evil by setting boundaries and consequences.

10) We should never confuse Gods permission and/with Gods tolerance, for when we do we make the mistake of believing God is consenting to evil when He in reality He is exercising, for a set time, forbearance toward evil.

God bless you,
your brother in Christ,
Albert R.

Using the word tolerance is helpful. He is refraining from judging until the appropriate time. In granting us free will, He knew that He would need to step in as Redeemer and also as Judge. He is clearly not the author of evil.

 

[Hol]

Thank you Brother Albert! A dear sister in the Lord is Calvanist and was a close friend before I got saved. Once I became a believer she felt I needed to follow Calvanism. I'd never heard of it, researched it, and the Holy Spirit graciously led me to their views on God choosing evil. I couldn't agree, so I asked her why she clung to those views? Her answer was that their stance best honored the sovereignity of God.

I'm saddened for her, because God is love, and gives us free will so that we can honor His sovereignity without making our sinful natures compliant by force with His sovereignity. He didn't create us to be robots. He teaches us to obey, because His Holy Spirit leads us to trust & cling to Jesus. As you stated, He tolerates our times of doubt and failure, longing for us to simply trust that He alone is good.

 

[DanLMP]

That's a good start Brother Albert.

Being a logical person myself I like your analysis.

 

[Brother Albert R.]

Like I stated initially, in my study of this topic, the Calvinist view of evil repulsed me and it drove me into the scriptures and not into books written on this topic by man. I did not desire to be influenced anymore by mans understanding but rather go straight to the source, "Gods own Word". I wanted to know what God said...and so I continue;
God bless you,
your brother in Christ,
Albert R.

Segment 2
Does God decree evil?

There are some who believe God rules in such a sovereign manner that He decreed evil and then punished Himself for the evil He Himself decreed. A sovereign ruler is not one who controls every action of his subjects, but is one who has set limits to those actions by punishing those who continue to rebel against him. The most controlled countries of the world, who are ruled by kings or dictators, are a good example of this point. If you were to go to any one of those countries you would find that they have prisons, and why is that? It is meant for those who do not conform to the governing authorities. Will you find the prisons always empty? I think not. And does God not have prisons for those angels who left their first estate, and does He not warn us to expect similar treatment if we do not obey Him? Isa.13:11 says “I will punish the world for its evil, the wicked for their sins. I will put an end to the arrogance of the haughty and will humble the pride of the ruthless.” In Acts14:16 we read “In the past He let all nations go their own way.” So let us not forget that there is a way that seems right to a man but the end is death. Man is accountable for his actions because they are “his actions.” Romans 1:32 says “Although they know God's righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.” (also read Psa.50:16-22). God cannot will what He finds displeasure in. Otherwise He would be willing what He does not will. It will make God out to be some kind of schizophrenic. To the extent of evil that God will tolerate from man, will be the extent He will bring glory to Himself. For what man intends for evil God will make it turn out for the good. Because sometimes God allows what He hates, to accomplish what He loves.

 

[Sherwood]

Before I post why I disagree with Calvinists let me ask that all participants post their responses with respect and love. The only area that I want to address is the Sovereignty of God VS. the free-will of man. I do not claim to be an authority on this issue but I was once a Calvinist and now I am not, both then and now I have always been a Christian. I was a Calvinist until I was confronted with the issue of evil and the Sovereignty of God. I could not reconcile the view that accepts the idea that evil was part of the will of God because, as Calvinist claim, "if it was not part of Gods will then it could not exist". That thought repulsed me, because it made a connection between God and evil that I knew could not be. So I began to look at the whole of scripture, rather than piece-mill, and I saw a God who is more repulsed with evil than I. Does God will something that repulses Him...I think not! I am going to post in segments what I have learned through my study and as questions arise I will post more. So here is my first case in point;
Do we have a separate will from Gods' will?

If “NO”, then we must be always pleasing to God because we can only will what He wants.

If “YES” then we must have a distinction between our will and Gods' will.

The distinction is evident in what is viewed as displeasing to God, mainly evil.

Do we, ''will with evil intent''? ''YES''

Does God, ''will with evil intent''? ''NO''

Adam and Eve were perfectly made as they reflected the very image of God, being made in His likeness. When they listened to the evil one and believed that eating off the tree of knowledge of good and evil would make them more like God they ate, rebelled and sinned against their Creator. In doing so they became corrupted images of God. As God is aware of knowing good and evil so also were both Adam and Eves eyes opened to the horrors of evil. Like a computer that is being uploaded with a virus that corrupts its pure and good files so did the upload of information to their minds from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. They exchanged a perfect human likeness of God for a corrupted and imperfect likeness as they became aware of what God knows concerning good and evil. As a computer that does not have the anti-virus program to counter the effects of the virus so we as mere mortals could not handle such knowledge as God is capable of handling without being corrupted by the effects of knowing evil. And like the initial computer that passes on its virus to future computers, we also have been downloaded and tainted with the knowledge of evil passed on by our parents, grand-parents, great grand-parents, all the way back to Adam and Eve. Therefore we are in a constant battle with what we know,...''Oh wretched man that I am, who will save me from this body of death?''. Ergo the promised Deliverer, the Mediating God-man...Jesus the Lamb who preached like a Lion the good news of salvation from eternal destruction. The one who would come to wipe our hard-drives clean, making us once again acceptable to our Creator.



Permission VS. Tolerance

(Alberts' 10 commandments of understanding Gods' Lordship)

1) God tolerates what He does not permit.

2) What God does not permit He calls sin (disobedience).

3) God tolerates sin but God does not give His permission to sin.

4) There is a limit to how much God will tolerate sin before He judges it.

5) Since God is the Sovereign Lord, He is the Supreme Ruler.

6) As Ruler, God establishes boundaries and consequences.

7) God sanctions (officially permits) only good.

8) God does not sanction (officially permits) evil.

9) God exercises His Sovereignty over evil by setting boundaries and consequences.

10) We should never confuse Gods permission and/with Gods tolerance, for when we do we make the mistake of believing God is consenting to evil when He, in reality, is exercising, for a set time, forbearance toward evil.

God bless you,
your brother in Christ,
Albert R.

Fantastic post

I like a lot of what you said there, Brother Albert, but I would add that it is our spirits that are made in the image of God, not our souls -- and it is our souls that do the choosing and have messed up so badly.

One thing I noticed about Calvinism early on was that if I disagreed with it, God must have ordained that I would disagree with it, so who were the Calvinists to tell me I was wrong? I have seen some of the horrid fruits of Calvinism myself, and so has my husband. He knew a man who was a confirmed Calvinist who also ended up being a male prostitute. But he was not worried about it, because God had already chosen if he would be in heaven or hell, so what he did made no difference. One of the examples I saw was of one of my students who was pretty normally rebellious as a teen and then told by his parents that since God obviously had not chosen him to be saved, they didn't want anything more to do with him. It is a deadly doctrine, in short.

Exactly. Calvinism is such an illogical conundrum, so full of confusion. I like to think that Jeremiah 14:14 (of the relatively few verses I remember by chapter and verse number) alone refutes such warped views.

Then the LORD said to me, "The prophets are prophesying falsehood in My name. I have neither sent them nor commanded them nor spoken to them; they are prophesying to you a false vision, divination, futility and the deception of their own minds.

Thank you Brother Albert! A dear sister in the Lord is Calvanist and was a close friend before I got saved. Once I became a believer she felt I needed to follow Calvanism. I'd never heard of it, researched it, and the Holy Spirit graciously led me to their views on God choosing evil. I couldn't agree, so I asked her why she clung to those views? Her answer was that their stance best honored the sovereignity of God.

I'm saddened for her, because God is love, and gives us free will so that we can honor His sovereignity without making our sinful natures compliant by force with His sovereignity. He didn't create us to be robots. He teaches us to obey, because His Holy Spirit leads us to trust & cling to Jesus. As you stated, He tolerates our times of doubt and failure, longing for us to simply trust that He alone is good.

In Calvin's view, God is so very sovereign that He is not able to handle mankind having their own free will. Wait, doesn't make much sense, does it? It is astounding how many seemingly enlightened believers give themselves up to such false doctrines that attack the very character of our Lord.

This is actually a very important point. There are two things that need to be mentioned about it:

1. It is very easy for non-Calvinists to lose sight of the absolute sovereignty of God and the awe we should feel of His holiness. Some of RC Sproul's (sr.) work on the holiness of God is outstanding stuff. Yes, Jesus is our elder brother and best friend, but He is also Creator of the Universe and us, our Lord, God, Redeemer, Judge. We cannot afford to subjugate our understanding of that to the Shepherd aspect. He is ALL of those things.

2. Although they claim only Calvinism supports and respects the absolute sovereignty of God, their God is simply not sovereign enough! That is because God is truly big enough and sovereign enough to allow us free will. It is that very freedom which allows us to choose to love Him. It is not love if you were predestined (programmed) to respond a certain way to Him or anyone else. Love is a decision which must be freely made -- a decision to commit to someone regardless of the inconvenience and sometimes pain to yourself.

That Helen is exactly what God's unconditional love is. It's not so much an emotion, but a choice to do something out of good will and selflessness for the benefit of another, and that is the love God has always had for us - the love that Jesus willingly gave Himself up for, for the sakes of we the wretched including those who choose not to respond in faith to His love.

TULIP (Total depravity, Unconditional election, Limited atonement, Irresistible grace and Perseverance of the Saints), the five points that Calvinism is founded on is as rotten a flower as they come. I personally have some doubts that anyone ensnared by any one of these is not in danger of the lake of fire, such is the nature of their attack on the holiness, righteousness, love and character of our awesome God.

I thank God He delivered you from the clutches, Brother Albert.

 

[Andy C]

TULIP (Total depravity, Unconditional election, Limited atonement, Irresistible grace and Perseverance of the Saints), the five points that Calvinism is founded on is as rotten a flower as they come. I personally have some doubts that anyone ensnared by any one of these is not in danger of the lake of fire, such is the nature of their attack on the holiness, righteousness, love and character of our awesome God.

I concur.

 

[DaveS]

The Bible seems to make a distinction between those who are deceived and those who know better (think of Adam and Eve). So we need to be very careful about even suggesting judgments, I think.

(I Tim. 2:14)

Speaking of Adam and Eve.

 

[greg64]

So we need to be very careful about even suggesting judgments, I think.

Yes! Since the resurrection, we're saved or not based on whether or not we have accepted Christ and his payment on our behalf. The rest of this is just man struggling to understand and explain God, neither of which is really possible and is not a salvation issue unless we use it to substitute for what really is.

 

[Sherwood]

The Bible seems to make a distinction between those who are deceived and those who know better (think of Adam and Eve). So we need to be very careful about even suggesting judgments, I think.

I absolutely understand what you're saying, but the Bible also makes a distinction between The Gospel and counterfeits. I am convinced that the precepts of Calvinism are another gospel because it is so fundamentally adverse to the very elementals Christ and His apostles taught - I cannot seem to reconcile any of Calvin's five points to what we know as the genuine gospel without it becoming something else entirely. If I am wrong, then great, that's many more people who have attained forgiveness and eternal life then I have thought, but I have very serious doubts.

 

[Andrew]

There are definitely those who are deceived and have no idea that they are being deceived. They are not in the same category as those who are promoting Calvinism.

 

[Andy C]

People who KNOW about TULIP and subscribe to the Calvinist doctrine with all its implications -- that's another story. But I remember so many friends in that church who, I am quite sure, had not the slightest idea what Calvinism mean

Excellent point, and I fully concur.

Yes, many sheep in the flock may not have any idea of some of their churches beliefs. I attended one church that had zero mention of any part of TULIP in their statement of Belief, but yet occasionally it would rear its ugly head in a sermon. However, those not well versed in the Bible may not even realize it when the reformed pastor sneaks it into the sermon.

I understand that folks like John McArthur, John Piper, Chip Engram, and many others, may teach some solid sermons not involving Calvinism. But for me, I choose not to listen to, or read anything from a known Calvinist.

 

[Brother Albert R.]

There are definitely those who are deceived and have no idea that they are being deceived. They are not in the same category as those who are promoting Calvinism.

Thank you Andrew,
I asked this question in another post, "What are the essentials of the Christian faith?" I know we are to have unity in the essential, liberty in non-essential and show charity in everything. But what are the basic beliefs that separate a real believer from a false believer? Are they found in any of the old creeds? I know they are to be biblical, but what are they?
God bless you,
your brother in Christ,
Albert R.

 

[Andrew]

Thank you Andrew,
I asked this question in another post, "What are the essentials of the Christian faith?" In know we are to have unity in the essential, liberty in non-essential and show charity in everything. But what are the basic beliefs that separate a real believer from a false believer? Are they found in any of the old creeds? I know they are to be biblical, but what are they?
God bless you,
your brother in Christ,
Albert R.

One thing I know is that those who subscribe to TULIP will have no certainty as to their salvation. Consequently, they often seek to reassure thenselves by trying to comply with laws and rules.

 

[mattfivefour]

I promised to write this in an attempt to help some understand Calvinism—what is wrong and what, if anything, is right.

As is well-known and already discussed above, Calvinism rests on five points. As is also pointed out in a post above, they are known by the acronym TULIP, which stands for

• Total depravity
• Unconditional election
• Limited Atonement
• Irresistible grace
• Perseverance of the saints

I don’t have space here to launch into a deep theological study of these doctrines. Nor do I have the time to prepare such a study. But I suggest that such a deep study is not needed for the average Christian. God’s teaching in this area is, I believe, quite straight-forward—although man seems able to make that appear not to be so. (Having said that, I notice that it has taken me almost four and a half thousand words to speak of this “straightforward” doctrine! )

Anyway, let’s begin.

Total Depravity
The original meaning of Total Depravity was extensive, rather than intensive. In other words, as the Center for Reformed Theology and Apologetics puts it,

“The effect of the fall upon man is that sin has extended to every part of his personality -- his thinking, his emotions, and his will. Not necessarily that he is intensely sinful, but that sin has extended to his entire being.​

​

“The unregenerate (unsaved) man is dead in his sins (Romans 5:12). Without the power of the Holy Spirit, the natural man is blind and deaf to the message of the gospel (Mark 4:11f). This is why Total Depravity has also been called "Total Inability." The man without a knowledge of God will never come to this knowledge without God's making him alive through Christ (Ephesians 2:1-5).”​

And to this degree, the Calvinists are correct. No person can come to Christ unless the Father draws him or her. That’s a gospel fact (John 6:44). But they go way beyond this simple meaning and suggest that the Father’s calling of those who become saved is limited to just those people and is based on some sovereign decision made by God within His secret eternal council and results solely from His sovereign will being toward some and not others. But the Bible does not say this, as we shall see as we press on with this brief study. The context of the idea of Total Depravity sits in part upon two key passages of Scripture—

Isaiah 54:6 “We have all become like one who is unclean, and all our righteous deeds are like a polluted garment. We all fade like a leaf, and our iniquities, like the wind, take us away.”​

​

Psalm 14:3; 53:3; Romans 3:12 “They have all turned aside; together they have become corrupt; there is none who does good, not even one.”​

The problem for the Calvinist interpretation of these passages is that the context does not refer to an inability of man to seek God. If man could not seek God, then why would God repeatedly call on man to seek Him?

Amos 5:4 “For thus says the LORD to the house of Israel: “Seek me and live.”​

​

Deuteronomy 4:29 “But from there you will seek the LORD your God and you will find him, if you search after him with all your heart and with all your soul.”​

​

Isaiah 55:3 “"Incline your ear and come to Me. Listen, that you may live; And I will make an everlasting covenant with you, According to the faithful mercies shown to David.”​

​

Jeremiah 29:13 “You will seek me and find me, when you seek me with all your heart.”​

​

Hebrews 11:6 “Without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is and that He is a rewarder of those who seek Him.”​

There are dozens of similar verses. None of them would make any sense unless God believed that man could seek Him. Of course, the seeker needs divine help. And God says plainly that He will come to whomever tries to find Him.

1 Chronicles 28:9b “If you seek Him, He will let you find Him; but if you forsake Him, He will reject you forever.”​

Unconditional Election
The Calvinists view this doctrine as teaching that:

“God chose those whom he was pleased to bring to a knowledge of himself, not based upon any merit shown by the object of his grace and not based upon his looking forward to discover who would ‘accept’ the offer of the gospel. God has elected, based solely upon the counsel of his own will, some for glory and others for damnation.” (Center for Reformed Theology and Apologetics)​

And they use Romans 9:15,21 as their proof texts. These verses state,

“For He (God) says to Moses, ‘I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion’ … Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use?”​

But look at the context by reading all of Romans 9. If you read it carefully, seeking God’s illumination , you will see that the Holy Spirit here is not using Paul to teach the sovereign will of God but that God is not unjust in His decisions. The issue is without question the justice of God, not anything else.

We must never focus on one characteristic of God and allow that to trump other equally valid characteristics of His. God has said He IS love. Not love as humans practice it, but giving, self-sacrificing love that has as its focus not self but the other person. God’s love does not seek some return, but only operates in order to give.

As a result of that love, God tells us that He is not willing that any be lost but that ALL might find repentance (2 Peter 3:9). To attempt to draw a doctrine from Romans 9 that supports God making some cosmic eeny-meeny-miny-moe choice of souls whom He creates, the winners being given salvation, the rest of the people being sent to a destruction they have no choice either to choose or reject, is to contradict the fundamental doctrine of God’s love for ALL humankind, not just the Jews and not just a few specially chosen ones.

Further, the Calvinists’ belief that God has elected to save only a certain portion of the souls He has created and that this election is “not based upon his looking forward to discover who would ‘accept’ the offer of the gospel” runs utterly counter to God’s own Word! In Peter’s first epistle, the Holy Spirit tells us the following:

1 Peter 1:1-2 “Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to those who reside as aliens, scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, who are chosen according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, by the sanctifying work of the Spirit, to obey Jesus Christ and be sprinkled with His blood: May grace and peace be yours in the fullest measure.”​

A couple of years ago, as I was driving Dr. Thomas Ice somewhere, I asked him how he reconciled this verse with his Calvinist teaching. His answer was to tell me that “the foreknowledge of the Father” did not mean “the foreknowledge of the Father” as we would think of foreknowledge. He said the word “foreknowledge” here actually means “foreordination” and that God simply foreordained as elect the ones to whom Peter is writing.

I won’t get into the depth of the convoluted grammatical reasoning behind this view, but I will lay it out in broad strokes. The Calvinists draw their re-interpretation of the word “foreknowledge” (Greek prognosis) in this verse from the grammatical construction of Acts 2:23 where the words “determinate counsel” of God and “foreknowledge” of God appear in a form which, arguably (though not to them), makes both words possibly refer to the same act of God. From this the Calvinist says that since God’s “determinate counsel “ and His “foreknowledge” refer to the same thing then the word foreknowledge cannot simply refer to previous knowledge since “determinate counsel” refers to an act of mutual discussion and consideration of a matter. Therefore, after further reasoning from word meanings, the Calvinists say that foreknowledge must simply “refer to that counsel of God which after deliberative judgment certain from among mankind were designated to a certain position, that position being defined by the context.” (First Peter in the Greek New Testament, Kenneth Wuest, Erdman’s 1942, 1970.) That position and context here, of course, refers to salvation.

This is an argument worthy of a Jesuit! Note that it is entirely grammatical, not theological. Let me assure you that the simple fact of God's Word is that He does not hide His truths, to be discovered through convoluted thinking or reasoning. And certainly His truths in one place will never contradict His truths in another. Based on an in-depth study of the Greek, I believe that in both occurrences of the noun prognosis in the NT and all five occurrences of the verb prognosko, we can confidently translate the meaning as to "foreknow" in the sense of "know beforehand". To doubt this meaning is to doubt—or in some way limit—the truth of God's omniscience.

Limited Atonement
The Center for Reformed theology and Apologetics says of this doctrine, in part:

“Limited Atonement is a doctrine offered in answer to the question, "for whose sins did Christ atone?" The Bible teaches that Christ died for those whom God gave him to save (John 17:9). Christ died, indeed, for many people, but not all (Matthew 26:28).”​

I wish I could say at least say that their interpretation of Scripture here is faulty but I can see where they think they have scriptural support for their view. Unfortunately, I can see no such place of scriptural support at all. John 17:9 does not dictate a limit, nor does Matthew 26:28. Not in the slightest. It is stretching scripture to the breaking point to find limited atonement in those verses. Or in any other verse of the Bible. But I can find many, many verses that tell me that salvation is intended for all and, were it not for the fact that God has given man free will to choose or reject Him, God would have ALL men to be saved:

2 Peter 3:9 “The Lord is not slow about His promise, as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing for any to perish but for all to come to repentance.”​

​

1 Timothy 2:3-4 “This is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. “​

​

John 3:16-17 “For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son that whosoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through Him..”​

​

Revelation 22:17 “The Spirit and the bride say, ‘Come.’ And let the one who hears say, ‘Come.’ And let the one who is thirsty come; let the one who wishes take the water of life without cost.”​

​

1 John 4:15 “Whoever confesses that Jesus is the Son of God, God abides in him, and he in God.”​

​

Revelation 3:20 “Behold, I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and eat with him, and he with me.”​

Further, Scripture is very clear that Christ’s atonement was not just for a select few but for ALL humankind.

John 2:2 “He Himself is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world.”​

​

John 4:42 “They said to the woman, "We now believe not only because of your words; we have heard for ourselves, and we know that this man truly is the Savior of the world."​

​

1 John 2:2 “He Himself is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not for ours alone, but also for the sins of the whole world.”​

​

1 John 4:14 “And we have seen and testify that the Father has sent His Son to be the Savior of the world.”​

​

Now, there IS a limitation on the atonement; but not the kind of limit the Calvinist posits. And we find it clearly outlined in the most famous salvation verse in the Bible— John 3:16. “For God so loved the world…” There is the breadth of God’s love: “the world.” He loved the world (Greek kosmos, meaning ‘the entire created earth including all of its inhabitants’) to such an extent “that He gave His only begotten Son.” This describes the extent of God’s love (he gave His only begotten Son) and the focus of that love (for “the world”.) So there is no limit there, at all. But keep reading . “… that whosoever believes in Him ...” and there we have the limitation. Christ died for all mankind, but only those who believe in Him—only those who, by faith, genuinely accept that sacrifice for themselves—will “not perish but have everlasting life.”

So the limit on the atonement is that only those who accept it can benefit from it. Those who reject it have no benefit from it, even though it was made available to them.

I once described the universality and the limitation of the atonement through the following story:

A father had two sons from whom he was estranged. They had no interest at all in having anything to do with him. Without the wealth possessed by the father, the two sons lived humbly and walked everywhere, having no means of transportation. One day, in an attempt to reach out to them and bring them back into the family fold, the father purchased two beautiful cars and delivered them to the residence of each son. The first son was touched by the gift. He went and took the key, opened the vehicle, turned on the ignition, and began to drive everywhere he needed to go. The townsfolk shook their heads and said, “The father really loved that son., Look at the vehicle he bought him.” But the second son wanted absolutely nothing to do with his father. In his bitterness, he rejected the gift. He refused to use the key, leaving it lying where it had been placed. And even though the vehicle was at his disposal, he chose to continue walking everywhere, proud that he was leading his own life and was not beholden to the father. And as he walked the streets of the town, the townsfolk shook their heads and said, “That poor boy. The father does not love him like the other son for, see, he is still having to walk everywhere.”

The townsfolk of that story are a lot like the Calvinists. They see one person with the father’s gift and believe that shows his love for that son. And they see the other son without a gift and presume that is because the father has not chosen to bless that son. But the simple fact is the father had given the same gift to both sons. One chose to accept it; the other chose to reject it. End of story. The views of the townfolk were in error.

So too, God the Father has given the gift of salvation to the entire world; sadly, only some choose to accept it. This does not mean that God only intended his gift for those who accept it. He intended it for everybody. That many reject it in no way changes that fact. Salvation is for all. Only those who finally and utterly reject it can not receive it and therefore die in their sins.

Irresistible Grace
The Center for Reformed Theology and Apologetics says that

“The result of God's Irresistible Grace is the certain response by the elect to the inward call of the Holy Spirit, when the outward call is given by the evangelist or minister of the Word of God. Christ, himself, teaches that all whom God has elected will come to a knowledge of him (John 6:37). Men come to Christ in salvation when the Father calls them (John 6:44), and the very Spirit of God leads God's beloved to repentance (Romans 8:14). What a comfort it is to know that the gospel of Christ will penetrate our hard, sinful hearts and wondrously save us through the gracious inward call of the Holy Spirit (I Peter 5:10)!”​

Certainly it is possible to see from the verses above how someone could view God’s grace as being imposed on the recipients. But this is demonstrably erroneous. A proper review of Scripture shows that irresistible grace is not—nor could it ever be—the case. God gave man free will. Under the anointing of the Holy Spirit, Moses said to the people of Israel “I call heaven and earth to witness against you today, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and curse. Therefore choose life, that you and your offspring may live … (Deuteronomy 30:19),” which would be a rather silly thing to say if the people had no choice. Further, under the same anointing Joshua said to the people of Israel, “choose this day whom you will serve, whether the gods your fathers served in the region beyond the River, or the gods of the Amorites in whose land you dwell (Joshua 24:15).” If they had no free will, it would have been equally silly for God to have had Joshua say that. And God never says anything foolish.

When He set blessings and curses before the people of Israel, He was giving them a very real choice. They were free to make their own choice and God accepted whatever choice they made, regardless of how foolish it may have been. Now that didn’;t mean that He would sit back and not try to bring circumstances into their lives that would cause them to voluntarily turn back to Him; but He did not force or coerce them into repentance. He simply let them reap the results of their choice. Our God does not change. He is the same yesterday, today, and forever. He did not give Israel choices which He withholds from the rest of the world. Love that is compelled is not love.

Unfortunately, when Calvin developed his doctrines he lived in a world-wide culture that fully understood (and lived under) an absolute monarchy. A monarch was sovereign in every degree. No sovereign could truly be sovereign if members of his or her realm could refuse the sovereign’s commands and substitute their own. It was this view that colored the view of John Calvin (and many other reformers) regarding the sovereignty of God. They believed that if a man could refuse the will of God, then God could not be God. Hence, by their logic, man could not have free will if God was to have true sovereignty.

Again man painted God in his own image. The fact is that God’s sovereignty is shown to its uttermost in the fact that God can allow man to have his own free will and in no way weaken His sovereignty. In fact, God’s sovereignty is magnified by the fact that nothing man does can threaten or weaken it in any way. The simple fact is that God’s omnipotence is such that regardless of what man or Satan does, He will work it all to His glory and the furtherance of His Kingdom. God’s will shall remain supreme despite allowing Satan and man to have their ways.

Perseverance of the Saints
This is the final point of Calvinism. It is a doctrine which states simply …

“… that the saints (those whom God has saved) will remain in God's hand until they are glorified and brought to abide with him in heaven. Romans 8:28-39 makes it clear that when a person truly has been regenerated by God, he will remain in God's stead. The work of sanctification which God has brought about in his elect will continue until it reaches its fulfillment in eternal life (Phil. 1:6). Christ assures the elect that he will not lose them and that they will be glorified at the "last day" (John 6:39). The Calvinist stands upon the Word of God and trusts in Christ's promise that he will perfectly fulfill the will of the Father in saving all the elect. (Center for Reformed Theology and Apologetics)​

Well, here is where—if this were the only point of Calvinism—I could be a Calvinist. Indeed, God will not lose one who comes to Him. All who accept Christ will be kept forever, because it is God who does the initial work and the continuing work in the saint.

John 6:39 “And this is the will of him who sent me, that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me, but raise it up on the last day.”​

​

1 Corinthians 1:8 “God will sustain you to the end, so that you will be blameless on the day of our Lord Jesus Christ.”​

​

Colossians 1:22 “But now He has reconciled you by Christ's physical body through death to present you holy, unblemished, and blameless in His presence.”​

​

Philippians 2:13 “God is the One working in you both to will and to work according to His good pleasure.”​

​

2 Timothy 1:12 “I know whom I have believed and I am convinced that He is able to guard what I have entrusted to Him until that day.”​

​

Philippians 1:6 “I am confident of this very thing, that He who began a good work in you will perfect it until the day of Christ Jesus.”​

To support the doctrine of the perseverance of the saints, the Calvinists have many of the right verses. But they impose on those verses the erroneous doctrine of limited atonement. And in so doing they further pervert the gospel of universal grace offered, man being free to choose it or reject it.

Before I leave this point, may I suggest that the idea of “the perseverance of the saints” is inextricably intertwined with the idea of “the preservation of the saints”? We persevere because God saves us, He indwells us, He works in us, He keeps us, and above all He guarantees to present us faultless before His throne in Glory (Jude 1:24). Glory to His Name!!!

Conclusion:
Calvinism as it is believed and practiced today does not—nor can it—stand on bare Scripture. It can only stand as man redefines the meanings of words and adds his own conditions to God’s statements. And ultimately it falls not just on the basis of Scripture alone but on the basis of the character of God as revealed in Scripture.

God gave us the ten commandments not simply as a set of rules to live by but as a revelation of His character. When He calls on us to live justly and with love, He says so because He is both just and love. If we are to be in communion with Him, we must be like Him. He is the pure and holy one who is perfect love and perfect justice. He gives with no thought of return in mind and has no respect for a person’s status or self-view but only looks at the heart and He responds freely and willingly to all who seek Him. In no way would this God impose standards of selfless love for ALL mankind (remember the lesson of the parable of the Good Samaritan) but choose to act toward many whom He created without that same love … simply because He is God and sovereign and who can do what He wills.

God will not act contrary to His revealed character. He is the God of Perfect Love and Perfect Justice. The doctrine of the Calvinists denies this … regardless of their disclaimers and repudiation of the charge.

No, there is no truth in the idea of the total depravity of man. But there is truth in the idea of the depravity of man. We have seen in Scripture that it is not total. Man can still seek God, despite his depravity. Indeed, God expects him to do so.

No, there is no truth in the idea of unconditional election. There is, however, truth in the idea of election according to God’s foreknowledge. In other words, God by His omniscience foreknows who will accept Him and what it will take in their life to bring them to that point. And He determines to do all necessary to get them to that point where they can exercise their free will and accept Him once they realize who He is and what they are. Those whom He foreknows will NEVER accept Him regardless of what He does (short of compelling them to accept Him), He does not put the same effort into. And that is not unjust in the least. The injustice is purely on the part of the man or woman who rejects all that God has done for them.

No, there is no truth to the idea of limited atonement in the sense that the atonement is limited only to God’s elect. But there is a limitation to the effectiveness of the atonement— it can only be effective for those who accept it. It is of absolutely of no value to the rebel who rejects it

No, there is no truth whatsoever to the idea of irresistible grace. It is an erroneous doctrine that is predicated on the human concept of the absolute sovereignty of God combined with the idea of the total depravity of man.

Yes, there is great truth to the idea of the perseverance of the saints and, I like to add, to the truth of the preservation of the saints.

I think if you prayerfully consider this topic, leaving aside all preconceptions (either for or against), asking God to guide you, and then undertake a study of the character of God as revealed in Scripture along with the verses used by both sides, you will definitely com to the belief that the Calvinist gospel as proclaimed today is in sufficient error as to be rejected by necessity in order to preserve the faith once delivered. (Jude 1:3). Therefore, let us fight the good fight of faith (1 Timothy 6:12).

I pray this all helps someone.

 

[Andy C]

I promised to write this in an attempt to help some understand Calvinism—what is wrong and what, if anything, is right.

As is well-known and already discussed above, Calvinism rests on five points. As is also pointed out in a post above, they are known by the acronym TULIP, which stands for

• Total depravity
• Unconditional election
• Limited Atonement
• Irresistible grace
• Perseverance of the saints

I don’t have space here to launch into a deep theological study of these doctrines. Nor do I have the time to prepare such a study. But I suggest that such a deep study is not needed for the average Christian. God’s teaching in this area is, I believe, quite straight-forward—although man seems able to make that appear not to be so. (Having said that, I notice that it has taken me almost four and a half thousand words to speak of this “straightforward” doctrine! )

Anyway, let’s begin.


Total Depravity

The original meaning of Total Depravity was extensive, rather than intensive. In other words, as the Center for Reformed Theology and Apologetics puts it,

“The effect of the fall upon man is that sin has extended to every part of his personality -- his thinking, his emotions, and his will. Not necessarily that he is intensely sinful, but that sin has extended to his entire being.

“The unregenerate (unsaved) man is dead in his sins (Romans 5:12). Without the power of the Holy Spirit, the natural man is blind and deaf to the message of the gospel (Mark 4:11f). This is why Total Depravity has also been called "Total Inability." The man without a knowledge of God will never come to this knowledge without God's making him alive through Christ (Ephesians 2:1-5).”​

And to this degree, the Calvinists are correct. No person can come to Christ unless the Father draws him or her. That’s a gospel fact (John 6:44). But they go way beyond this simple meaning and suggest that the Father’s calling of those who become saved is limited to just those people and is based on some sovereign decision made by God within His secret eternal council and results solely from His sovereign will being toward some and not others. But the Bible does not say this, as we shall see as we press on with this brief study. The context of the idea of Total Depravity sits in part upon two key passages of Scripture—

Isaiah 54:6 “We have all become like one who is unclean, and all our righteous deeds are like a polluted garment. We all fade like a leaf, and our iniquities, like the wind, take us away.”

Psalm 14:3; 53:3; Romans 3:12 “They have all turned aside; together they have become corrupt; there is none who does good, not even one.”​

The problem for the Calvinist interpretation of these passages is that the context does not refer to an inability of man to seek God. If man could not seek God, then why would God repeatedly call on man to seek Him?

Amos 5:4 “For thus says the LORD to the house of Israel: “Seek me and live.”

Deuteronomy 4:29 “But from there you will seek the LORD your God and you will find him, if you search after him with all your heart and with all your soul.”

Isaiah 55:3 “"Incline your ear and come to Me. Listen, that you may live; And I will make an everlasting covenant with you, According to the faithful mercies shown to David.”

Jeremiah 29:13 “You will seek me and find me, when you seek me with all your heart.”

Hebrews 11:6 “Without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is and that He is a rewarder of those who seek Him.”​

There are dozens of similar verses. None of them would make any sense unless God believed that man could seek Him. Of course, the seeker needs divine help. And God says plainly that He will come to whomever tries to find Him.

1 Chronicles 28:9b “If you seek Him, He will let you find Him; but if you forsake Him, He will reject you forever.”​

Unconditional Election

The Calvinists view this doctrine as teaching that:

“God chose those whom he was pleased to bring to a knowledge of himself, not based upon any merit shown by the object of his grace and not based upon his looking forward to discover who would ‘accept’ the offer of the gospel. God has elected, based solely upon the counsel of his own will, some for glory and others for damnation.” (Center for Reformed Theology and Apologetics)​

And they use Romans 9:15,21 as their proof texts. These verses state,

“For He (God) says to Moses, ‘I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion’ … Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use?”​

But look at the context by reading all of Romans 9. If you read it carefully, seeking God’s illumination , you will see that the Holy Spirit here is not using Paul to teach the sovereign will of God but that God is not unjust in His decisions. The issue is without question the justice of God, not anything else.

We must never focus on one characteristic of God and allow that to trump other equally valid characteristics of His. God has said He IS love. Not love as humans practice it, but giving, self-sacrificing love that has as its focus not self but the other person. God’s love does not seek some return, but only operates in order to give.

As a result of that love, God tells us that He is not willing that any be lost but that ALL might find repentance (2 Peter 3:9). To attempt to draw a doctrine from Romans 9 that supports God making some cosmic eeny-meeny-miny-moe choice of souls whom He creates, the winners being given salvation, the rest of the people being sent to a destruction they have no choice either to choose or reject, is to contradict the fundamental doctrine of God’s love for ALL humankind, not just the Jews and not just a few specially chosen ones.

Further, the Calvinists’ belief that God has elected to save only a certain portion of the souls He has created and that this election is “not based upon his looking forward to discover who would ‘accept’ the offer of the gospel” runs utterly counter to God’s own Word! In Peter’s first epistle, the Holy Spirit tells us the following:

1 Peter 1:1-2 “Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to those who reside as aliens, scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, who are chosen according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, by the sanctifying work of the Spirit, to obey Jesus Christ and be sprinkled with His blood: May grace and peace be yours in the fullest measure.”​

A couple of years ago, as I was driving Dr. Thomas Ice somewhere, I asked him how he reconciled this verse with his Calvinist teaching. His answer was to tell me that “the foreknowledge of the Father” did not mean “the foreknowledge of the Father” as we would think of foreknowledge. He said the word “foreknowledge” here actually means “foreordination” and that God simply foreordained as elect the ones to whom Peter is writing.

I won’t get into the depth of the convoluted grammatical reasoning behind this view, but I will lay it out in broad strokes. The Calvinists draw their re-interpretation of the word “foreknowledge” (Greek prognosis) in this verse from the grammatical construction of Acts 2:23 where the words “determinate counsel” of God and “foreknowledge” of God appear in a form which, arguably (though not to them), makes both words possibly refer to the same act of God. From this the Calvinist says that since God’s “determinate counsel “ and His “foreknowledge” refer to the same thing then the word foreknowledge cannot simply refer to previous knowledge since “determinate counsel” refers to an act of mutual discussion and consideration of a matter. Therefore, after further reasoning from word meanings, the Calvinists say that foreknowledge must simply “refer to that counsel of God which after deliberative judgment certain from among mankind were designated to a certain position, that position being defined by the context.” (First Peter in the Greek New Testament, Kenneth Wuest, Erdman’s 1942, 1970.) That position and context here, of course, refers to salvation.

This is an argument worthy of a Jesuit! Note that it is entirely grammatical, not theological. Let me assure you that the simple fact of God's Word is that He does not hide His truths, to be discovered through convoluted thinking or reasoning. And certainly His truths in one place will never contradict His truths in another. Based on an in-depth study of the Greek, I believe that in both occurrences of the noun prognosis in the NT and all five occurrences of the verb prognosko, we can confidently translate the meaning as to "foreknow" in the sense of "know beforehand". To doubt this meaning is to doubt—or in some way limit—the truth of God's omniscience.


Limited Atonement

The Center for Reformed theology and Apologetics says of this doctrine, in part:

“Limited Atonement is a doctrine offered in answer to the question, "for whose sins did Christ atone?" The Bible teaches that Christ died for those whom God gave him to save (John 17:9). Christ died, indeed, for many people, but not all (Matthew 26:28).”​

I wish I could say at least say that their interpretation of Scripture here is faulty but I can see where they think they have scriptural support for their view. Unfortunately, I can see no such place of scriptural support at all. John 17:9 does not dictate a limit, nor does Matthew 26:28. Not in the slightest. It is stretching scripture to the breaking point to find limited atonement in those verses. Or in any other verse of the Bible. But I can find many, many verses that tell me that salvation is intended for all and, were it not for the fact that God has given man free will to choose or reject Him, God would have ALL men to be saved:

2 Peter 3:9 “The Lord is not slow about His promise, as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing for any to perish but for all to come to repentance.”

1 Timothy 2:3-4 “This is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. “

John 3:16-17 “For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son that whosoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through Him..”

Revelation 22:17 “The Spirit and the bride say, ‘Come.’ And let the one who hears say, ‘Come.’ And let the one who is thirsty come; let the one who wishes take the water of life without cost.”

1 John 4:15 “Whoever confesses that Jesus is the Son of God, God abides in him, and he in God.”

Revelation 3:20 “Behold, I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and eat with him, and he with me.”​

Further, Scripture is very clear that Christ’s atonement was not just for a select few but for ALL humankind.

John 2:2 “He Himself is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world.”

John 4:42 “They said to the woman, "We now believe not only because of your words; we have heard for ourselves, and we know that this man truly is the Savior of the world."

1 John 2:2 “He Himself is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not for ours alone, but also for the sins of the whole world.”

1 John 4:14 “And we have seen and testify that the Father has sent His Son to be the Savior of the world.”
​

Now, there IS a limitation on the atonement; but not the kind of limit the Calvinist posits. And we find it clearly outlined in the most famous salvation verse in the Bible— John 3:16. “For God so loved the world…” There is the breadth of God’s love: “the world.” He loved the world (Greek kosmos, meaning ‘the entire created earth including all of its inhabitants’) to such an extent “that He gave His only begotten Son.” This describes the extent of God’s love (he gave His only begotten Son) and the focus of that love (for “the world”.) So there is no limit there, at all. But keep reading . “… that whosoever believes in Him ...” and there we have the limitation. Christ died for all mankind, but only those who believe in Him—only those who, by faith, genuinely accept that sacrifice for themselves—will “not perish but have everlasting life.”

So the limit on the atonement is that only those who accept it can benefit from it. Those who reject it have no benefit from it, even though it was made available to them.

I once described the universality and the limitation of the atonement through the following story:

A father had two sons from whom he was estranged. They had no interest at all in having anything to do with him. Without the wealth possessed by the father, the two sons lived humbly and walked everywhere, having no means of transportation. One day, in an attempt to reach out to them and bring them back into the family fold, the father purchased two beautiful cars and delivered them to the residence of each son. The first son was touched by the gift. He went and took the key, opened the vehicle, turned on the ignition, and began to drive everywhere he needed to go. The townsfolk shook their heads and said, “The father really loved that son., Look at the vehicle he bought him.” But the second son wanted absolutely nothing to do with his father. In his bitterness, he rejected the gift. He refused to use the key, leaving it lying where it had been placed. And even though the vehicle was at his disposal, he chose to continue walking everywhere, proud that he was leading his own life and was not beholden to the father. And as he walked the streets of the town, the townsfolk shook their heads and said, “That poor boy. The father does not love him like the other son for, see, he is still having to walk everywhere.”

The townsfolk of that story are a lot like the Calvinists. They see one person with the father’s gift and believe that shows his love for that son. And they see the other son without a gift and presume that is because the father has not chosen to bless that son. But the simple fact is the father had given the same gift to both sons. One chose to accept it; the other chose to reject it. End of story. The views of the townfolk were in error. So too, God the Father has given the gift of salvation to the entire world; sadly, only some choose to accept it. This does not mean that God only intended his gift for those who accept it. He intended it for everybody. That many reject it in no way changes that fact. Salvation is for all. Only those who finally and utterly reject it can not receive it and therefore die in their sins.


Irresistible Grace

The Center for Reformed Theology and Apologetics says that

“The result of God's Irresistible Grace is the certain response by the elect to the inward call of the Holy Spirit, when the outward call is given by the evangelist or minister of the Word of God. Christ, himself, teaches that all whom God has elected will come to a knowledge of him (John 6:37). Men come to Christ in salvation when the Father calls them (John 6:44), and the very Spirit of God leads God's beloved to repentance (Romans 8:14). What a comfort it is to know that the gospel of Christ will penetrate our hard, sinful hearts and wondrously save us through the gracious inward call of the Holy Spirit (I Peter 5:10)!”​

Certainly it is possible to see from the verses above how someone could view God’s grace as being imposed on the recipients. But this is demonstrably erroneous. A proper review of Scripture shows that irresistible grace is not—nor could it ever be—the case. God gave man free will. Under the anointing of the Holy Spirit, Moses said to the people of Israel “I call heaven and earth to witness against you today, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and curse. Therefore choose life, that you and your offspring may live … (Deuteronomy 30:19),” which would be a rather silly thing to say if the people had no choice. Further, under the same anointing Joshua said to the people of Israel, “choose this day whom you will serve, whether the gods your fathers served in the region beyond the River, or the gods of the Amorites in whose land you dwell (Joshua 24:15).” If they had no free will, it would have been equally silly for God to have had Joshua say that. And God never says anything foolish.

When He set blessings and curses before the people of Israel, He was giving them a very real choice. They were free to make their own choice and God accepted whatever choice they made, regardless of how foolish it may have been. Now that didn’;t mean that He would sit back and not try to bring circumstances into their lives that would cause them to voluntarily turn back to Him; but He did not force or coerce them into repentance. He simply let them reap the results of their choice. Our God does not change. He is the same yesterday, today, and forever. He did not give Israel choices which He withholds from the rest of the world. Love that is compelled is not love.

Unfortunately, when Calvin developed his doctrines he lived in a world-wide culture that fully understood (and lived under) an absolute monarchy. A monarch was sovereign in every degree. No sovereign could truly be sovereign if members of his or her realm could refuse the sovereign’s commands and substitute their own. It was this view that colored the view of John Calvin (and many other reformers) regarding the sovereignty of God. They believed that if a man could refuse the will of God, then God could not be God. Hence, by their logic, man could not have free will if God was to have true sovereignty.

Again man painted God in his own image. The fact is that God’s sovereignty is shown to its uttermost in the fact that God can allow man to have his own free will and in no way weaken His sovereignty. In fact, God’s sovereignty is magnified by the fact that nothing man does can threaten or weaken it in any way. The simple fact is that God’s omnipotence is such that regardless of what man or Satan does, He will work it all to His glory and the furtherance of His Kingdom. God’s will shall remain supreme despite allowing Satan and man to have their ways.


Perseverance of the Saints

This is the final point of Calvinism. It is a doctrine which states simply …

“… that the saints (those whom God has saved) will remain in God's hand until they are glorified and brought to abide with him in heaven. Romans 8:28-39 makes it clear that when a person truly has been regenerated by God, he will remain in God's stead. The work of sanctification which God has brought about in his elect will continue until it reaches its fulfillment in eternal life (Phil. 1:6). Christ assures the elect that he will not lose them and that they will be glorified at the "last day" (John 6:39). The Calvinist stands upon the Word of God and trusts in Christ's promise that he will perfectly fulfill the will of the Father in saving all the elect. (Center for Reformed Theology and Apologetics)​

Well, here is where—if this were the only point of Calvinism—I could be a Calvinist. Indeed, God will not lose one who comes to Him. All who accept Christ will be kept forever, because it is God who does the initial work and the continuing work in the saint.

John 6:39 “And this is the will of him who sent me, that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me, but raise it up on the last day.”

1 Corinthians 1:8 “God will sustain you to the end, so that you will be blameless on the day of our Lord Jesus Christ.”

Colossians 1:22 “But now He has reconciled you by Christ's physical body through death to present you holy, unblemished, and blameless in His presence.”

Philippians 2:13 “God is the One working in you both to will and to work according to His good pleasure.”

2 Timothy 1:12 “I know whom I have believed and I am convinced that He is able to guard what I have entrusted to Him until that day.”

Philippians 1:6 “I am confident of this very thing, that He who began a good work in you will perfect it until the day of Christ Jesus.”​

To support the doctrine of the perseverance of the saints, the Calvinists have many of the right verses. But they impose on those verses the erroneous doctrine of limited atonement. And in so doing they further pervert the gospel of universal grace offered, man being free to choose it or reject it.

Before I leave this point, may I suggest that the idea of “the perseverance of the saints” is inextricably intertwined with the idea of “the preservation of the saints”? We persevere because God saves us, He indwells us, He works in us, He keeps us, and above all He guarantees to present us faultless before His throne in Glory (Jude 1:24). Glory to His Name!!!


Conclusion:

Calvinism as it is believed and practiced today does not—nor can it—stand on bare Scripture. It can only stand as man redefines the meanings of words and adds his own conditions to God’s statements. And ultimately it falls not just on the basis of Scripture alone but on the basis of the character of God as revealed in Scripture.

God gave us the ten commandments not simply as a set of rules to live by but as a revelation of His character. When He calls on us to live justly and with love, He says so because He is both just and love. If we are to be in communion with Him, we must be like Him. He is the pure and holy one who is perfect love and perfect justice. He gives with no thought of return in mind and has no respect for a person’s status or self-view but only looks at the heart and He responds freely and willingly to all who seek Him. In no way would this God impose standards of selfless love for ALL mankind (remember the lesson of the parable of the Good Samaritan) but choose to act toward many whom He created without that same love … simply because He is God and sovereign and who can do what He wills.

God will not act contrary to His revealed character. He is the God of Perfect Love and Perfect Justice. The doctrine of the Calvinists denies this … regardless of their disclaimers and repudiation of the charge.

No, there is no truth in the idea of the total depravity of man. But there is truth in the idea of the depravity of man. We have seen in Scripture that it is not total. Man can still seek God, despite his depravity. Indeed, God expects him to do so.

No, there is no truth in the idea of unconditional election. There is, however, truth in the idea of election according to God’s foreknowledge. In other words, God by His omniscience foreknows who will accept Him and what it will take in their life to bring them to that point. And He determines to do all necessary to get them to that point where they can exercise their free will and accept Him once they realize who He is and what they are. Those whom He foreknows will NEVER accept Him regardless of what He does (short of compelling them to accept Him), He does not put the same effort into. And that is not unjust in the least. The injustice is purely on the part of the man or woman who rejects all that God has done for them.

No, there is no truth to the idea of limited atonement in the sense that the atonement is limited only to God’s elect. But there is a limitation to the effectiveness of the atonement— it can only be effective for those who accept it. It is of absolutely of no value to the rebel who rejects it

No, there is no truth whatsoever to the idea of irresistible grace. It is an erroneous doctrine that is predicated on the human concept of the absolute sovereignty of God combined with the idea of the total depravity of man.

Yes, there is great truth to the idea of the perseverance of the saints and, I like to add, to the truth of the preservation of the saints.

I think if you prayerfully consider this topic, leaving aside all preconceptions (either for or against), asking God to guide you, and then undertake a study of the character of God as revealed in Scripture along with the verses used by both sides, you will definitely com to the belief that the Calvinist gospel as proclaimed today is in sufficient error as to be rejected by necessity in order to preserve the faith once delivered. (Jude 1:3). Therefore, let us fight the good fight of faith (1 Timothy 6:12).

I pray this all helps someone.

Excellent summary of the faulty TULIP. I have spent years studying or debating Calvinism and your short summary is one I will copy and keep for further reference - Thanks!

 

[Jeff K]

Thanks for the teaching on Calvinism, Mattfivefour. I'm not a Calvinist, nor do I agree with their views.

What is hard for me is things like people on this forum and others using sources like gotquestions.org to support their views. From seeing respected Christians use such sources, I have come to trust it and have used that site for some of my own questions. In some of their responses, they appear to hold a Calvinist view. If this is the case, should the site be avoided for all other remarks as well?
I read J. Vernon McGee's books and he calls himself a Calvinist. McGee states in one passage that he was saved because God made the choice and then in another states that those in Hell will be there because they made the choice from their free will to reject the free gift of salvation through Jesus Christ.
Are Calvinist's saved? In another thread, it was noted that Spurgeon was a Calvinist. Does his view on election void out all his other teachings? Does that view of election put him in the file of being lost, unsaved? I don't read much of Spurgeon, but I think the question is valid. Same thing with those like John McArthur. Would you consider McArthur a lost man because of his views of election?

I usually spend my time trying to focus on Christ crucified and resurrected and getting that good news to others. If I read J. Vernon McGee and it helps me with getting out that truth, is that wrong because he's a Calvinist?

 

[Andy C]

Thanks for the teaching on Calvinism, Mattfivefour. I'm not a Calvinist, nor do I agree with their views.

What is hard for me is things like people on this forum and others using sources like gotquestions.org to support their views. From seeing respected Christians use such sources, I have come to trust it and have used that site for some of my own questions. In some of their responses, they appear to hold a Calvinist view. If this is the case, should the site be avoided for all other remarks as well?
I read J. Vernon McGee's books and he calls himself a Calvinist. McGee states in one passage that he was saved because God made the choice and then in another states that those in Hell will be there because they made the choice from their free will to reject the free gift of salvation through Jesus Christ.
Are Calvinist's saved? In another thread, it was noted that Spurgeon was a Calvinist. Does his view on election void out all his other teachings? Does that view of election put him in the file of being lost, unsaved? I don't read much of Spurgeon, but I think the question is valid. Same thing with those like John McArthur. Would you consider McArthur a lost man because of his views of election?

I usually spend my time trying to focus on Christ crucified and resurrected and getting that good news to others. If I read J. Vernon McGee and it helps me with getting out that truth, is that wrong because he's a Calvinist?

I too have reservations about using "Got questions" because SOME of their Pastors do believe in Calvinism, but others do not, and their answers clearly reflect this. However, I have done so in the past, and probably will do so in the future, and will use SOME of their answers on this forum.

Are Calvinist saved? I can not look into their hearts to know if they are saved are not, but for one who is a diehard 5 point Calvinist, then that would cause me concern for their salvation based on their believing a Gospel other than that which was preached by the many authors of the Bible which were written under direction from the Holy Spirit.

I'm not so sure on your ideas on J Vernon McGee's views on Calvinism and the attached video from McGee defutes Calvinism.

 

[Hol]

Thank you mattfivefour! This portion really helps me understand the choice we freely have (plus your story about the free cars).

I won’t get into the depth of the convoluted grammatical reasoning behind this view, but I will lay it out in broad strokes. The Calvinists draw their re-interpretation of the word “foreknowledge” (Greek prognosis) in this verse from the grammatical construction of Acts 2:23 where the words “determinate counsel” of God and “foreknowledge” of God appear in a form which, arguably (though not to them), makes both words possibly refer to the same act of God. From this the Calvinist says that since God’s “determinate counsel “ and His “foreknowledge” refer to the same thing then the word foreknowledge cannot simply refer to previous knowledge since “determinate counsel” refers to an act of mutual discussion and consideration of a matter. Therefore, after further reasoning from word meanings, the Calvinists say that foreknowledge must simply “refer to that counsel of God which after deliberative judgment certain from among mankind were designated to a certain position, that position being defined by the context.” (First Peter in the Greek New Testament, Kenneth Wuest, Erdman’s 1942, 1970.) That position and context here, of course, refers to salvation.

This is an argument worthy of a Jesuit! Note that it is entirely grammatical, not theological. Let me assure you that the simple fact of God's Word is that He does not hide His truths, to be discovered through convoluted thinking or reasoning. And certainly His truths in one place will never contradict His truths in another. Based on an in-depth study of the Greek, I believe that in both occurrences of the noun prognosis in the NT and all five occurrences of the verb prognosko, we can confidently translate the meaning as to "foreknow" in the sense of "know beforehand". To doubt this meaning is to doubt—or in some way limit—the truth of God's omniscience.

 

[Andrew]

Excellent summary of the faulty TULIP. I have spent years studying or debating Calvinism and your short summary is one I will copy and keep for further reference - Thanks!

Yes, this is an excellent summary! Very simply explained and definitely worth keeping.