I do not like to start arguments. However, I am ordained to share the truth of God's Word with believers and non-believers alike. I receive lots of questions and one often concerns Calvinism. It is one that I struggled long and hard with as a young Christian ... until I subjected it to the light of God's Word. And by that I mean not just a few verses taken as proof-texts, but the entirety of the Word. The result was this article which I wrote a few years ago in fulfilment of a promise to people to help them understand Calvinism—what is wrong and what, if anything, is right.
As most people know, Calvinism rests on five points. (If you didn't know that, you know it now. It is a fact.) These points are commonly known by the acronym TULIP. It stands for—
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,
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 alone 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 toward 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—
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?
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.
Unconditional Election
The Calvinists view this doctrine as teaching that:
And they use Romans 9:15,21 as their proof texts. These verses state,
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:
A few 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:
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:
Further, Scripture is very clear that Christ’s atonement was not just for a select few but for ALL humankind.
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 cannot receive it and therefore die in their sins.
Irresistible Grace
The Center for Reformed Theology and Apologetics says that
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:
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—
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.
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”? What do I mean? I mean that 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.
As most people know, Calvinism rests on five points. (If you didn't know that, you know it now. It is a fact.) These points are commonly known by the acronym TULIP. It stands for—
- Total depravity
- Unconditional election
- Limited Atonement
- Irresistible grace
- Perseverance of the saints
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 alone 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 toward 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 few 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 cannot 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).”
Now, that 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”? What do I mean? I mean that 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.
