Are Calvinists "wrong"? Genuine Christians who are Calvinists are correct on a great number of points, because they hold the same essential truths of the Gospel that genuine Christians who are non-Calvinists hold. While some Calvinists seem to speak of Calvinism more than Christ, and that theology appears to be more important than a relationship with Christ, that is just some Calvinists. All Calvinists are not that way, and Calvinism does not require people to be that way.

Nevertheless, in my opinion, there are five main errors that are common in Calvinism. Every Calvinist does not teach every one of these errors, but if a person does not have any of these errors, I do not see how they can be a Calvinist.

These errors can be represented by the acronym: Thorn.

¬ Total Control - God's Sovereignty Mis-defined

¬ Humans are Blamed for Adam's Guilt

¬ Only Grace: Faith is just Another Work

¬ Responsibility to Respond With No Respond-ability

¬ No Savior, Offer, Justice, or Love for All

This file is an unfinished refutation of these points. The THORN of Calvinism is wrong by both an appeal to scripture and consistency of logic. Two things this file fails to do are a detailed exegesis of relevant scriptures, and putting the pieces together to show what is right. The detailed exegesis is in the file CalvBibl.doc. A start on putting the pieces together is on page 5, though more needs to be done. Here is a table of contents of everything in this file.

The Five Other Points of Calvinism - THORN 1

Total Control - God's Sovereignty Misdefined 3

Humans Are Blamed for Adam's Guilt 13

Only Grace - Is Faith Just Another Work? 25

Responsibility without Respondability 27

No Opportunity for Salvation 36

Mild Calvinism - Are Pink and Gill Really Calvinists at All? 45

What Distinguishes a Calvinist from an Arminian? 48

Paul had a thorn in his flesh in 2 Corinthians 12:7. We do not know what this was, but we do not want to be a thorn to our brothers and sisters in Christ. However, you have to tell those you love about a THORN in their doctrine so that they can remove it. One could make a case that extreme Arminianism is worse than extreme Calvinism, but not believing one error does not justify another as an alternative. Extreme Arminianism has its own THORN, but this paper deals with the THORN of Calvinism.

"Jesus loves the little children, all the children of the world"

"Jesus loves me this I know, for the Bible tells me so"

"But the Pharisees and experts in the law rejected God's purpose for themselves, ..." Luke 7:30.

"[God] is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance." 2 Peter 3:9

"This is good, and pleases God our Savior, who wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth. For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all men - the testimony given in its proper time." 1 Timothy 2:3-6

' Calvinists either deny these or give novel interpretations.

What is a Calvinist? I have been told [wrongly] that Calvinists must be cultists. I have been told that all Baptists are Calvinists, because they believe in once-saved-always-saved. Hyper-Calvinists are not Calvinists. Hyper-Calvinists are Calvinists. Exactly what makes a true Christian a Calvinist?

Calvinists themselves often describe Calvinism with their term "Doctrines of Grace". Specifically absent from their doctrines are God having compassion on all, the importance of preaching God's grace to all, and a sincere call to obedience to the gospel for all. Since a hyper-Calvinist or Calvinist can completely believe the "Doctrines of Grace" yet deny these things, the Calvinistic "Doctrines" are a very incomplete description of God's grace.

Calvinists' doctrines of grace are often described in an acronym.

Total Depravity (or some Calvinists say Total Inability)

Unconditional Election

Limited Atonement (some prefer Definitive atonement)

Irresistible Grace, (Irresistible Secret Will for some)

Perseverance of the Saints

All Calvinists (including hyper-Calvinists) subscribe to these five points. Many non-Calvinists are so-called 3-, 4, and 4 1/2 point Calvinists they agree with most of the words, though the definitions differ. But if TULIP does not show the distinctives of Calvinism, then what are the distinctives?

Not all Calvinists have their all five points in their theology, but belief or at least acquiescence of these peculiar teachings are "sharp distinctions" between Calvinists and other Christians.

¬ Total Control - God's Sovereignty Misdefined

Now we will briefly explain each thorn and why they are wrong. Extensive proofs and quotes are in the following sections.

¬ Total Control - God's Sovereignty Mis-defined

Calvinist believers say God must control every action, event, thought, by His decree, down to the last atom. They base this primarily on their logic (God would not be God otherwise), Eph 1:11, and Prov 16:4,33. One can see the logical consequences: God is the author of sin, Calvinism is fatalism, and God works against Himself. Calvinists deny these consequences, though.

All agree that while God permits sin, God does not tempt people; God is not the immediate cause of sin. Calvinists deny, over and over, that God is the author of sin. Calvinists actually believe God is the ultimate cause of sin, because Calvinists call God the decreer, governor, willer, and determiner of every sin. (A.W. Pink p.101,251-252, Loraine Boettner p.240).

All agree that an impersonal fatalism is false. Calvinists deny, over and over, that Calvinism is fatalism. Since even Calvinists agree Islam teaches that God ordains a personal fatalism, Calvinists are open to the same charge. As one Calvinist put it, "you are either a robot of God or a robot of Satan."

All agree that God is not divided. Calvinists ought to deny that God works at cross purposes with Himself. If people displease God, bring on God's wrath, successfully resisting God's revealed will, because God sovereignly chose that they should do so in His secret will, how then God does not agree with what He decrees?

An Alternative: God is Interactive. Nothing happens beyond what God allows, God directly controls everything He chooses. God has chosen not to directly control some things, but also permits within bounds. God even permits things that did not originate in His mind (Jer 19:5; 32:35), to happen along with things He desires, such as a measure of human freedom. God works all things together as part of His ultimate plan. (Eph 1:11).

¬ Humans are Blamed for Adam's Guilt

Christians believe that 1) all deserve punishment from God for their own sins, 2) we inherited death, a sinful nature, and curses from Adam, and 3) we do suffer for the actions of others. Calvinists fail to distinguish between curses in this life and guilt before God. Calvinists think the plain meaning of Ezek 18 is misleading, for it violates their interpretation of Rom 5:15-21.

Calvinists misunderstand Romans15-21 because they fail to see that Adam's sinful actions do not directly make us guilty of eternal condemnation; rather Adam's actions brought the result that we are guilty of eternal condemnation.

If Romans 5 did teach that Adam's actions made us deserving of guilt, do Jesus' actions make us deserving of justification? -No!

Unless someone says that the reprobate are punished more severely for Adam's sins (and I think Calvinists would not say this), then even assuming there is added guilt for Adam's sins, this has no eternal effect, though Adam's curse brought about severe temporal effects.

An Alternative: God is Interactive. All do not have the same opportunities in life, and we inherit from Adam our nature, but not his guilt. However, God judges us based on what we know, and we can all know something from God in Romans 1:18-20. Romans -21 shows that Adam's sin brings about the result of the condemnation of all, but Ezekiel 18 shows that nobody shares our guilt of our sins, and we do not have the guilt of anybody else.

¬ Only Grace: Faith is just Another Work

All agree that works are an essential result of salvation; but all of our works are insufficient to help save us in the least bit. Calvinists deny, over and over, that they teach human exertion does not matter. Romans and the Bible never contrast grace vs. faith, rather the Bible contrasts grace vs. works.

Many Calvinists feel very strongly about one of the rallying cries of the Reformation "sola fide" (by faith alone), and that is good. R.C. Sproul wrote an excellent book on this. However, when other Calvinists emphasize that "we have no part in our salvation," then our faith would have no role in us getting saved. They call faith simply a "good work" as Loraine Boettner said in The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination p.365. While some Calvinists would back away from a crass equating of faith with works, those who do not have in common with Catholics and legalists the view of placing faith on the same level as works, and sola fide becomes non fide. Those who do not actively support this teaching need to distinguish how we are saved by the grace of God through our faith in Christ.

An Alternative: God is Interactive. In Luke 7:50 "Jesus said to the woman, 'Your faith has saved you; go in peace." Now all can agree that faith is not the ultimate cause of our salvation: God is. However, faith does have a role as part of the immediate cause.

¬ Responsibility With No Respond-ability

All agree that God is not unjust (Heb 6:10). Now humans can have unusual ideas about justice, but God is just as He describes His justice in Scripture. Sin done unintentionally is still sin, but is not held to our account (Romans 4:15; 5:13).

The Pharisees rejected God's purpose for themselves in Luke 7:30. The reprobate can resist the Holy Spirit in Acts 7:51. Co-workers can receive God's grace in vain in 2 Cor 6:1.

Calvinists often say that if we understood divine justice, it would not longer be divine, or some similar tautology. Well, I think that if we could understand God's word in Ezekiel 18, it would still be God's word, and if we could understand what God has revealed, it would still be God's revelation.

An Alternative: God is Interactive. If we are to be self-controlled (1 Peter 5:8), then by God's grace we have a responsibility and expectation to have a measure of self-control.

¬ No Savior, Offer, Justice, or Love for All

Calvinists disagree among themselves whether the Gospel should be offered to all, and whether people should be asked to believe in Jesus. If hard Calvinism were balanced and true, then people in Hell could say, "I might have believed many errors, but I did not believed the "lie" that Jesus loved me, died for my sins, and offered me any chance of escaping the eternal flames. As for godliness, at least I succeeded in everything God willed me to do."

Friends, God is not that way at all, and I think even Calvinists would agree with that. Jesus wept over Jerusalem in Lk 19:41; do you weep for the lost? In Acts 2:38 Peter commanded "every one of them" to repent and be baptized. In 2 Th 2:8 God will punish those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord. If the gospel, of accepting Christ as our Lord and Savior, is not for them to obey, for what disobedience to the gospel are they being punished for?

We agree that the only Mediator is Jesus. But Calvinists teaches that many have no mediator. In one sense you cannot blame some Catholics and Orthodox for wanting Mary to mediate for them, since Calvinists say that for many, Jesus will not.

An Alternative: God is Interactive. God is timeless, and only He could create a universe with both potentiality and certainty. In Romans 5:18 the same "all men" who were condemned were the same "all men" Jesus brought life for. Jesus did not just die for some of the world in 1 John 2:2, but either that verse misled all the Greek-speaking early Christians or Jesus died for the whole world. There is also a particular, definite aspect to Christ's atonement, but we must place the two side by side, as Jesus "is the Savior of all men, and especially of those who believe." (1Timothy 4:10)

A common saying of a Calvinist friend of mine is, "you can't take Calvinism to its logical conclusions." Since these are not "illogical conclusions", but logical ones, then it must be the premises that are flawed and incomplete. May we all grow to a more complete love and true understanding of his passion.

The problem with Calvinism is not as much in what it says, as the revealed truth it denies. Calvinism, at least for some, has muffled the loving, seeking, voice of God to hearers of the Gospel. If a theological system made the plain meaning of scripture appear misleading, would you choose the system first, or the normative meaning of scripture first?

When talking with Calvinists about grace and faith, it usually comes up that if faith is at all an input to our salvation, then we would be saved, in part, by our own work, that is, the work of faith. The presupposition is that faith is a work.

Of course, you can believe anything to be anything if you choose your own definitions. The issue to study here is, according to the Bible's descriptions, when it talks about works, is faith ever included as a "work" as the Bible defines works? I have never seen this question explicitly addressed in detail by a Calvinist or non-Calvinist, so here is (hopefully) a fair presentation of both sides, a conclusion, and an example of the subtle effects of unquestioned and unwarranted assumptions.

I do not think all Calvinists teach this error. Also, I am not sure that everyone who teaches this error really believes the error themselves; they might just be getting carried away with the rhetoric of Calvinism. Nevertheless, this is a logical consequence of Calvinism, and if your assumptions drive you to unbiblical logical consequences, it might be time to question your assumptions.

What part do we play in our own salvation? God's grace draws us to him, and we have no works, or anything else worth boasting about, concerning salvation. But does our faith play a role in us getting saved? Does our prayer and calling to the Lord play a role in us being born again? True Calvinists say no. Since salvation is 100% from God, we have no role in our salvation.

Let me ask the question a different way. Do we have any responsibility concerning us getting saved? Calvinists and even borderline hyper-Calvinists agree that God does not bear all of the responsibility; we have responsibilities. What exactly might those responsibilities be?

While the Pelagian would say we have partial responsibility for our salvation, classical Christians would not. Regular, classical Christians would say that we do not have the responsibility for our salvation, but we have the responsibility for accepting in faith our salvation. Calvinists disagree. They say that since faith too is a gift, there is nothing we can do, for ourselves or others, to influence ourselves of God in getting saved. As said earlier, Calvinists agree that we have responsibilities. They just cannot tell anyone, even themselves, what those responsibilities are.

Let me ask the question a third way. Are we a) saved by grace though faith, not works, or b) saved by grace, not faith nor works and Ephesians 2:8 is false and should not be in your Bible?

Before we understand the correct and incorrect views of the role of faith in our regeneration, we have to first understand the role of works.

Most evangelicals, whether Calvinist or non-Calvinist, would agree with the following: As James 2 shows, works are an important part of our regeneration, i.e. our being born again and saved. As Ephesians 2:8-10 shows, works have no part in us getting saved, and they have no part in us staying saved either. Rather, it shows that works are an important part of us being saved. In other words, like a heartbeat is a sign that someone is alive, works are a sign that we are alive in the Spirit. As a Christian from India put it, we are not saved by serving; we are saved to serve.

1 Thess 1:3 "...your work produced by faith, labor prompted by love, endurance inspired by hope in our Lord Jesus Christ."

James 2:20 "faith without deeds is useless"

James 2:22 "his faith was made complete by what he did."

James 2:24 "a person is justified by what he does and not by faith alone."

James 2:26 "As the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without deeds is dead."

Augustine's only support for faith being a work is "This is the work of God, that you believe on him whom he has sent." (Forster & Marston p.266)

Heb 4:2 "but the message they heard was of no value to them, because they those who heard did not combine it with faith."

Heb 11:1 "Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see."

Hebrews 11:7 "And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him."

Hebrews 12:2 Jesus is the perfecter/finisher of our faith

Gal 3:22 "...what was promised, being given through faith in Jesus Christ, might be given to those who believe."

2 Thessalonians 1:3 we thank God for you, because your faith and love are growing.

James 2:5 "Has not God chosen those who are poor ... to be rich in faith"

Luke 7:50 "Jesus said to the woman, 'Your faith has saved you; go in peace."

Gal 2:16 "know that a man is not justified by observing the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ. So we, too, have put our faith in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by observing the law,...

Titus 1:2 hope of eternal life is what our faith rests on.

1 Tim 1:14 The grace of our Lord was poured out on me [Paul] abundantly, along with the faith and love that are in Christ Jesus." So the faith and love were poured out on Paul as well as the grace.

Col 2:6 "So them, just as you received Christ Jesus as Lord, continue to live in him," If it takes a conscious decision of obedience on our part to obey the command continue to live in him, it must have taken a conscious decision of obedience on our part to receive Jesus.

Boettner p.365.

This error, that faith has almost the same place in Christianity as works, is very serious; it undermines one of the key points of the Reformation: by Grace alone, THROUGH FAITH ALONE, in Christ alone. Fortunately only a minority of Calvinists hold to this error. Indeed, R.C. Sproul's book By Faith Alone, gives many clear refutations of this error. However, I believe many Calvinist writers do not see the seriousness of the problem a minority of Calvinists have.

Some Church of Christ people teach that since "scripture contains all that is necessary for salvation", the Holy Spirit only works in people's lives after they are saved, which occurs when they are water baptized. Acts 10:44-48 contradicts this specific point. The larger issue is "does the Holy Spirit do nothing prior to a person becoming a Christians, or is, the gracious gift of the Holy Spirit not only a part of being saved, but essential for getting saved in the first place?

John 16:8-11 answers this by saying one of the roles of the Holy Spirit is to convict the "world" of guilt. In other words, to show people how far they are from the perfect righteousness and love of God.

Gal 3:3 "...After beginning with the Spirit, are you now trying to attain your goal by human effort?"

Gal 3:3 and 3:8

justified by faith (not human effort) Gal 3:3,8

1 Peter 1:7 "...your faith - of greater worth than gold, which perishes even though refined by fire - may be proved genuine..."

1 Peter 1:9 salvation is the goal of our faith

Heb 11:2,39 "They were all commended for their faith"

Who is commended for what they were compelled to have?

Eph 1:13-14 "And you also were included in Christ when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation. Having believed, you were marked in him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit, who is a deposit guaranteeing our inheritance..."

Gal 4:6 "Because you are sons, God sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, the Spirit who calls out, 'Abba, Father.'"

Perhaps it is a process. Gal 4:19 "My dear children, for whom I am again in the pains of childbirth until Christ is formed in you,"

Gal 3:14 "...so that by faith we might receive the promise of the Spirit."

Are We Dead In Sin Before We Come to Christ?

Certainly are

Also prisoners of sin.

Spurgeon's remarks

As believers dead to sin.

"The righteous will live by faith" Gal 3:11

faith here is not separate from deeds, for Gal 3L12 says "The law is not based on faith; on the contrary, 'The man who does these things will live by them.'"

2 Thess 2:10 "...They perish because they refused to love the truth and so be saved."

2 Thess 3:5 May the Lord direct your hearts into God's love and Christ's perseverance."

Not only are the non-elect without hope, but Eph 2:12 proves that even the saved were "without hope" prior to their being saved.

If the covenant of promise is not for the non-elect, Eph 2:12 proves that even the saved were "foreigners to the covenants of the promise" prior to their being saved.

Eph 2:5-10.

Php 2:29 "For it has been granted to you on behalf of Christ not only to believe on him, but also to suffer for him,"

some believers are destined for certain trials. 1 Thess 3:3

1 Peter 1:3 "In his great mercy he has given us new birth"

2 Tim 1:9 not saved by our righteous things but by His own purpose and grace

Titus 3:5 Not Saved by our righteous things but by His mercy

Titus 3:5 saved through the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit

Titus 3:7 justified by grace... having hope of eternal life

In what sense to we merit our own salvation?

Jesus was like His brothers in every way, except without sin. Heb 2:17

Heb 3:5,6

~Heb 5:7-9

Php 2:8 Christ humbled Himself

James 4:10 we are to humble ourselves

Eph 5:2 "and live a life of love, just as Christ loved us and gave himself up for as a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God."

James 4:10 "humble yourselves before the Lord, and he will lift you up."

We come to God

Heb 7:25

Heb 6:18 "...we who have fled to take hold of the hope offered to us may be greatly encouraged." (Heb 6:19 indicates this hope is salvation, as it enters the inner sanctuary behind the curtain)

Php 2:12-13 "Therefore, my dear friends, as you have always obeyed - not only in my presence, but now much more in my absence - continue to work out your salvation with fear and trembling, for is God who works in you to will and to act according to his good purpose."

You are sitting in the classroom taking the final exam in the course "Matrices of Complex Partial Differential Equations Pertaining to Quasars and Celestial Cosmology. You have no earthly idea why you are here. You do not even remember walking in the classroom. Your mechanical pencil and paper are ready, but many people seem to have brought a calculator or notebook computer - but not you. You first sense this is no ordinary test, when you notice the white wings coming out of the proctor's back. Your next clue is when you see the test; you do not recognize a thing. You never saw this before in class; wait a second, you never were even in this class, because you never were registered for the course - at least you don't remember pressing any wrong buttons during registration. You raise your hand for the proctor, since surely he will understand the mistake. You tell him, "I don't belong here. I never took the course, quite frankly, even if I did take the course I still would not belong here, you see, my mind was never made capable to understand such complex celestial mathematics. I really need help. Can you or anyone else help me?" He laughs and says, "I admire your courage, to be able to joke about the one test that determines whether you will spend eternity in Heaven or in Hell." At that moment, you realize that if you tried to cry for help, your voice is gone; if you try to run away, your legs are too wobbly. You wake up in a cold sweat; it was only a dream - or was it?

Surely that would be unjust if God had a test like that. More generally, would God create people (or even allow people to be created) that would by necessity be eternally tortured because He chose those people to have no ability whatsoever to "pass the final", or even the desire?

Many Christians would see two-parts to the correct answer. Fallen men have been give the responsibility for passing the "test of sinless perfection", obeying the law of God. None have. But Jesus down to earth came and passed perfectly, and by our crying out to Him, not just for help, but to take the test in our place, the Professor recorded Jesus' grade next to our name.

Thus while none can pass on their own, all can have the desire and can actually cry for help. Thus God is just, because while the responsibility of the test is for all, God gave all, not the ability, but the respond-ability, to cry for help, and Jesus came for all who call upon Him.

So is it a sincere and urgent message for all to cry to Jesus, or is Jesus' help only effective for those who would cry for it? Actually both; it is given for all, but only effective for those who cry for it. It is like a millionaire informing you that He put a million dollars in a bank account with your name on it. If you never believe Him enough to go to the bank, the money does you no good, even if you are starving to death.

1 Tim 4:9-10 says, "This is a trustworthy saying that deserve full acceptance (and for this we labor and strive), that we have put our hope in the living God, who is the Savior of all men, and especially of those who believe."

While non-Calvinists and many Amyraldian Calvinists would agree with the preceding section, most Calvinists would not. They believe God creates people with no option, possibility, or even desire to cry for help. They believe Jesus did not die for all men. In 1 Tim 4:9-10, they insert the words "kinds of" between all men. If God did do such a thing, His efforts would be wasted, implying He did something in vain. His will would be resistible implying He does not totally control us. His salvation would be limited in effect, implying it is not grand enough to cover all sins, since it would not cover the sin of eternal unbelief.

Augustine, though not a Calvinist, is one both Calvinists and Catholics claim "theological descent" from. He taught that baptized infants go to heaven, and unbaptized infants all go to Hell. (5:25,26-28-29 On Forgiveness of Sin, and Baptism ch.26-30, 33-35)

Imagine This:

First infant to second: Why are you suffering in hell?

Second infant to first: I did not ask to be created, I was not aware of anything I did wrong, I had no opportunity to turn away from God in the slightest degree. I don't understand why I am being tortured forever. Why are you in heaven?

First infant: People I dimly recognized, believing something I did not know, did something to me I do not remember. Isn't God's grace wonderful?

Second infant: Yeah... Wonderful...

Now while many Calvinists today do night believe that about Augustine's infants, they do in general believe that the non-elect have been given no more opportunity to ask for salvation that Augustine's damned infants. For that matter, the elect have been given no more choice that Augustine's blessed infants, because God compelled (their word) them to believe.

Praise God that the teachings of the Church Fathers are not on the same level as scripture. Augustine wrote almost four hundred years after Christ's death, but that is no excuse, then or now, for not reading and incorporating into His teaching all that scripture says about God's justice. Just what does the Bible say about God's justice?

1 John 2:1 "He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world."

1 Tim 2:4-6 "who wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth. For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all men- the testimony given in its proper time."

Was God sincere in saying He wanted all men to be saved?

See Ezek 33:11 "Say to them, 'As surely as I live, declares the Sovereign LORD, I take no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but rather that they turn from their ways and live...."

Some Calvinists say God was sincere, but all means all the elect.

Rom 5:18 "Consequently, just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men, so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men."

Now if the second all does not mean all people, why does the first all mean all people. The words are the same in the Greek and in the understanding of the early Christians.

If all means just all the elect, how do these verses make any sense?

Luke 7:30 "But the Pharisees and experts in the law rejected God's purpose for themselves, because they had not been baptized by John."

John 15:22 "If I had not come and spoken to them, they would not be guilty of sin. Now, however, they have no excuse for their sin."

John 15:24 "If I had not done among them what no one else did, they would not be guilty of sin. But now they have seen these miracles, and yet they hated both me and my Father."

There are a number of verses that say Christ died for "the many" and a number of verses that showed Christ died for "all.". Rather than redefining many to mean all, or redefining all to mean all kinds, one can see two truths taught here. All are offered salvation, but the cross is not effective for everyone; only those who call unto the LORD to be born again. Some of these valuable verses showing the "many" are Mt 20:28; Jn 10:15; 17:9; Rom 8:32; Rom 5:10,12,13,19; Isa 53:11,12

Christians from the Apostles to Augustine believed very differently from Augustine on infants, and Calvinists on God's justice and man's free will. In fact, as the Calvinist Loraine Boettner candidly admits, in his book, The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination p.365, that the Reformed Doctrine of Predestination was not especially taught until the end of the fourth century. With the possible exception of Ambrose, Augustine's teacher, there is nobody for else, for four hundred years, who read the Bible and believed in the five peculiar points of Calvinism:

T - Total Control

H - Humans guilty for Adam's Sins?

O - Only Grace for Salvation, faith is just another work

R - Responsibility With No Respond-ability

N - No options or choices

There are multi-part tracts correcting each of these points.

At this place, we could conclude with a few comments, but quite frankly, the early Christians thought about this and said things as well as we could. In looking at these quotes, do not just look at the names and dates, but actually read and see the reasonableness of what they say.

Clement bishop of Rome 97 A.D. 1:13 "...being called by His will in Christ Jesus, are not justified by ourselves, ... but by that faith through which, from the beginning, Almighty God has justified all men; to whom be glory for ever and ever." First Clement 32.

Ignatius, disciple of John & bishop of Antioch 107 A.D. ~1:88 "Only you must pray for them, if by any means they may be brought back to repentance." Epistle to the Smyrnaeans 4.

Justin Martyr wrote 135-165 A.D. 1:177 "And again, unless the human race have the power of avoiding evil and choosing good by free choice, they are not accountable for their actions..." 1:177

To Diognetus 130 A.D. "as a Savior He sent Him, and as seeking to persuade, not to compel us; for violence has no place in the character of God." ch.7

Irenaeus, disciple of Polycarp & bishop of Lyons (177-202 A.D.) 1:347 "they [unbelievers] despise the workmanship of God, speaking against their own salvation.", Against Heresies.

Theophilus bishop of Antioch after Ignatius 168-181 A.D. 2:91 "And this is your condition, because of the blindness of your soul, and the hardness of your heart. But, if you will, you may be healed. Entrust yourself to the Physician [God], and He will couch the eyes of your soul and of your heart." To Autolycus 7.

Athenagoras 177 A.D. 2:142 "Just as with men, who have freedom of choice as to both virtue and vice (for you would not either honour the good or punish the bad, unless and vice and virtue were in their own power"

The list goes on and on. See the tract Calvinism - Absent Among Pre-Nicene Christians and Calvinism - Absent Until Augustine..

I hope you read this carefully, because there will be an exam over the memorization of every word. - Just kidding, I would not be unreasonable or unjust. God is far more just to all, even the reprobate, than us.

It feels a bit odd, when you want to find where in the Bible it says that someone rejected God's purpose for themselves (Luke 7:30), and it is the first page on which your Bible opens. Must have been sovereignly decreed, I guess.

My four year old son sometimes gets mad at his coloring book. when he colors, sometimes he does not stay completely within the lines, and getting mad at his book is a way avoiding being angry at his own inability to produce what pleases him. Is God the same way towards what He created? Christians of course would say no. But, we need to be able to say why.

Prior to Calvin, Zwingli and others asserted there was no free will. The great Swiss Anabaptist theologian Hübmaier had much to say against that. Teaching no free will does the following:

Gives cause to the wicked to remain in their sins

Let's people tell God we rob and still because we must obey God's decreed will.

Overthrows half of scripture, where God tells people to choose to do things.

Slanders God as a tyrant and charges Him with injustice

Says God does condemns people for reasons about which they can do nothing.

As Hübmaier exclaims: God forbid!

If a Calvinist (correctly) agrees that Hübmaier's following hypothetical situations can never be rightfully applied to God, and yet his system (Calvinism) demands it, he cannot hide behind saying the reason is a incomprehensible mystery.

"Indeed, because of your eternal foreknowledge and judgment we must go with the devil into eternal fire in order to fulfill your eternal foreknowledge"

"my stealing and my robbing was not my fault but God's will which no one can resist (Romans 9) Without his will I could not have done it. Because of my will I had to do it because it is bound and imprisoned.

"That I practice harlotry and adultery is the will of God. What God wills must take place. Yes, who can counter his will? Were it not his will, then I would not sin. If it is by his will, then I will stop sinning." (p.447)

"Adam and Eve could have so easily excused themselves before God with the words, 'Lord, that we have transgressed your commandment happened out of your providence and necessity. You made and ordered us to be so. Therefore, it had to happen." Such is far from God.

In looking at objections to Reformed teaching, Calvinist Curt Daniel has observed that "fairness" is one of the central objections. In his dissertation (p.285), under the objection "Election is not fair" Curt says, "A. Here is the basic objection of all. The kid gloves comes off and we have a bare-knuckle fight. The Bible answer is to the point: God is always just in all He does (Gen 18:25; Deut 32:4). Rom 9:14 specifically asserts divine justice in the matter of election. It is essential to remember that no man has a claim on God. Nobody deserves election, therefore God is righteous when He gives it to some and withholds it from others."

Notice the hidden assumption: since the Bible says that God is totally just, and since God elects, therefore election is just. The assumption is that the Calvinistic doctrine of election is the same as the correct and complete doctrine of Biblical election.

Curt Daniel also writes: "Underlying these objections [against the doctrine of Calvinism] is the secret (and sometimes open) objection, 'That's not fair!' This is worst of all, for it is a direct accusation against God. It mistakenly presupposed that Man has rights, when he has none." (Curt Daniel Biblical Calvinism p.10).

This is the underlying objection. However, note that Daniel believes that if you object to Calvinism, you are making a direct accusation against God. Any theologian, no matter how in error, could attempt to argue that if you disagree with his own theology, which he believes to be Biblical, you are certainly making a direct accusation against God. -not a good argument for the truthfulness of your theology. Every man, even the most wicked and ungodly, has at least two rights, because God gave them these rights. The first right is that God will not lie to Him, or lie at all, and God's words will certainly come to pass. The second right, derived from that, is that God has declared He will judge justly, impartially, and without favoritism. These "rights" are not necessarily nice privileges, they are a part of why people go to Hell. These men may hate God, and God may pour out His wrath on them, but deny these basic, Biblical "rights", and your theology goes down in flames.

Now maybe Daniel does not deny these rights, perhaps He just forgot to mention them. However, for those who do not believe in Calvinism because it tends to deny what Scripture teaches about God's justice, one should not "attack" them as making accusations against God when the accusations are against Calvinism. Calvinism is not the absolute truth. Neither is Arminianism, Interaction or any other theological system; all of man's theologies probably fall far short of the comprehensive truth of God.

I have read so many times that Calvinism is Biblical Christianity, Calvinism is the Gospel, and as one Calvinist said, Calvin's writings are not scripture, but perhaps they ought to be. This seems to border on idolatry. Now all Calvinists certainly do not feel this way, but they should be less tolerant of the error of those who do.

Now perhaps God is not just compared to some twisted standards of some people, but God is just and impartial compared to His own standard that He has revealed in the Bible. Daniel is correct in saying that "election" is just. But if election, as Calvinists perceive it, is not just according to God's standard of justice that He revealed in scripture, then the Calvinistic concept of election is deficient, and the core of Calvinism falls.

A tautology, or logical truth, is a statement like since A = A, then A = A. It is true, but basically meaningless. Is God's justice a tautology? Is God's justice indescribable, such that Calvinists are incapable of saying anything about God's justice except that God must be just because He says He is just?

Is God XXXX? If you have no idea what XXXX is, it is hard to say. If God says He is XXXX, but you have no idea what He means by that, we would not really know anything about XXXX. We need guidance from scripture of God's justice.

God is just: 2 Th 1:6; Dt32:4; Rom 3:5; Heb 6:10

God is impartial: 1 Peter 1:17; ~Jms 3:17.

There is no favoritism with Him: Rom2:11; Col 3:25; Eph6:9.

Ezek 18: The son does not die for the sin of the father or vice versa: each man dies for his own sin. (i.e., not another's sin)

Rom 4:15; 5:13; Heb 9:7;Acts 17:30 Sin may be present, but God does not punish for what people did not willfully knowably do

Rom 1:18-20 shows that men are without excuse, BECAUSE they had knowledge of God and suppressed the truth.

Gives us many examples of justice in the next section.

Deut 22:25-27 If a man rapes a woman in an open field, the only the man shall die.

Note that even though the woman was a participant in an evil act, worthy of death, no punishment was given to her because she was forced to be a part of that action.

The early church kicked people out of the church, immediately, for sexual immorality. However, even in the early church, if a female Christian slave were forcibly raped by her master, the church accepted her as one who had done nothing wrong. Justice is behind God's principles and commands in Dt 22:25-27.

However, Dt 22:23-24 says they are both to die if this happened in the city. This was not because she had the physical ability to stop the man, but because she had the ability to cry out for help. Unlike in the wilderness; if she had cried out in the city, people would have heard her.

Does God ever allow situations of evil that are beyond our physical, natural, and even spiritual ability to handle? Yes, He does. But we always have the ability to cry out to Him for help in our time of need. Praise God that He hears those who cry to Him.

Thus saying, the devil made me do it, it was beyond my ability to resist or endure, even if these excuses were true, does not excuse what we did. Sincerely cry out to God for help, and He will deliver you.

As Balthasar Hübmaier put it "Sin is done willingly; if it were not, it would not be sin. This willfulness is the theme of those Scriptures in which God rebukes us because we do not want to hear, know, or accept the good."

Now, one of the core objections to Calvinism is that it sounds like people are forced to believe or not believe in God. Calvinists do not put it that way though. They have said the elect are "compelled" to believe in God, and the reprobate are "left alone" and not given the ability to seek God. Why? - the ultimate reason, according to Calvinists, is because God decreed the elect to be compelled and the reprobate to be responsible for things they created unable to see or desire.

This section is an extremely loose paraphrase of Hübmaier's views. Saying we have no free will is not so much a lie as a dangerous half-truth. Humans have three parts: body, soul, and spirit. We have not one but three wills: body, soul, and spirit, too. There is a battleground inside of us. The will of the flesh cannot do anything but will sin. The soul, on its own can choose nothing good, nor can it refuse evil since it has lost the knowledge of good and evil. As Rom 7 shows, the soul has become entirely powerless and ineffective. The fall of the soul is reparable through the word of God, as Ps 119:7 says. The will of the flesh is not reparable here on earth.

As bad off as we are, though, there is still one thing we can do: hunger and thirst for righteousness. The old serpent almost blacked out and darkened the image of God in use through sin. Nevertheless, it was not possible to extinguish entirely this breath of God in us. Only God can extinguish it as punishment.

As we have three parts, the law is given in three ways: to the flesh for the recognition of its sins, to the spirit as and aid and witness against sin, and to the soul for a light whereby it can see and learn the way of righteousness and flee sin and evil.

What Calvinists say about the person is actually true about the flesh. "I know truly that nothing good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh" Rom 7:18. How can we be dead in transgression and sin (Eph 2:1) yet prisoners to sin Gal 3:22,23)? The solution is that our flesh is dead in sin, and our soul is a prisoner of sin.

Through the Fall, grace and freedom have been darkened and lost to such a degree that the human being does not know any longer what is good or evil without a special, new grace of God.

"...free will in the human being is nothing other than a power, force, energy, or adroitness of the soul to will or not will something, to choose or flee, to accept or to reject good or evil, according to the will of God, or according to the will of the flesh, which fleshly will and potentiality should more exactly be called an impotence rather than a power or energy." Freedom of Will I p.443

"For although no one comes to Christ unless the Father draws him, it, nevertheless, does not follow from this speech that all those come to Christ who have been drawn by the Father, John 6:44. As also not all those accept the light to whom Christ came to enlighten, John 1:9,11.

Hebrews 12 says that without faith it is impossible to please God. Non-Christians may not live up to their responsibilities before God, but exactly what are their responsibilities? What exactly is responsibility? The strict Calvinist Pink refers to Webster, and I think this is a good definition we can agree on.

"Webster defines responsibility first, as 'liable to account'; second, as 'able to discharge an obligation. 'Perhaps the meaning and scope of the term responsibility might be expressed and summed up in the one word oughtness. Godwards, responsibility respects that which is due the Creator from the creature, and which the creature is under moral obligations to render." (Pink p.248)

In my reading of Calvinism, the most succinct description of the core problem of Calvinism has been summed up by A.W. Pink (p.249), "Here then is the difficulty: If God has eternally decreed that Adam should eat of the tree, how could he be held responsible not to eat of it?"

Pink says that we can grasp the answer by distinguishing between God's secret and revealed wills. God's secret will decreed Adam to eat of it, while God's revealed will commanded Adam not to eat of it. The fact that Adam (and us) do not know God's secret will makes all the difference so far as responsibility is concerned.

In other words, since we cannot resist God (p.16) we are responsible when we follow God's decrees, and God's secret (decreed) will is contrary (Pink's word) to His revealed will.

Arnobius Against the Heathen p.454 "Because, if all things are brought about by His will, and nothing in the world can either succeed or fail contrary to His pleasure, it follows of necessity that it should be understood that all evils, took, arise by His will. But if, on the contrary, we chose to say that He is privy to and produces no evil, not referring to Him the causes of very wicked deeds, the worst things will begin to seem to be done either against His will, or, a monstrous thing to say, while He knows it not, but is ignorant and unaware of them." ~~~

Can people really make choices for God? Many Calvinists say no, and many non-Calvinists say Yes. One verse cited is Joshua 24:15

"But if serving the LORD seems undesirable to you, then choose for yourselves this day whom you will serve,..."

However, the rest of the verse says, "whom you will serve, whether the gods your forefathers served beyond the River, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land you are living. But as for me and my household, we sill serve the LORD."

If the only choices people could make are serving the idols beyond the River or the Amorite gods, this verse does not establish that people have the freedom to choose to serve the LORD.

The Israelites Also Chose to Serve the Lord

Josh 24:21-25 "But the people said to Joshua, 'No! We will serve the LORD.' Then Joshua said, 'You are witnesses against yourselves that you have chosen to serve the LORD.' 'Yes, we are witnesses,' they replied.' Now then,' said Joshua, 'throw away the foreign gods that are among you and yield your hearts to the LORD, the God of Israel.' And the people said to Joshua, 'We will serve the LORD our God and obey Him. On that day Joshua made a covenant for the people, and there at Shechem..."

Now if the people did not really choose to serve God, then this covenant was made under false pretenses.

&&&

Dead to Sin and a Prisoner of Sin

Were dead in our sins, and now alive in Christ Col 2:13

Dead without works

James 2:26 "As the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without deeds is dead."

Dead now as believers

Col 2:20 died to the basic principles of this world

Col 3:3

Eph 2:1,5 dead in your transgressions and sins, in which you used to live. - alive in Christ

&&&

People Also Choose Own Way -not referring to salvation

Gen 13:11 So Lot chose for himself the whole plain of Jordan...

Pr 4:14-15; 3:31 We are responsible to avoid the way of evil men.

1 Sam 8:18 cry out for relief from the king you have chosen

Isa 66:3 "They have chosen their own [abominable] ways,..."

Isa 6:8 Isaiah said to God "...send me"

People Can Seek and Choose Evil

Isa 66:4 They did evil in my sight and chose what displeases me.

Ps 4:2 love vanity and seek after leasing

Jer 19:7,9; 21:7; 22:25 Enemies who seek their lives

Pr 29:10; Jer 11:21; Ps 35:4; 38:12 Seek to kill the upright

Mt 2:13 Herod sought Jesus to destroy Him

Pr23:30; Jer2:24,33; Hos2:7; Pr21:6 seek mixed wine, sex, death

Isa 19:3 seek their idols

Judges 10:14 ...cry out to the gods you have chosen

Jms 4:4 Anyone who chooses to be a friend to the world...

1 Peter 4:3 ...spent enough time doing what pagans choose to do"

Isa 1:29 disgrace because of the gardens that you have chosen

Isa 41:25 "...He who chooses you is detestable"

Isa 65:12 "...You did evil ... and chose what displeases me."

Josh 24:16 Chose the gods on the near or far side of the river

Ecc 7:29 "God made mankind upright, but men have gone in search of many schemes."

Most Calvinists agree that man can choose evil, as one driving a car with no brakes can foolishly choose to accelerate.

Yet None Seek God or Obeys [On Their Own]

Rom 3:11 no one who seeks God. (Paul was quoting David)

Ps 14:2; 53:2 God looks down to see if any seek God [none do]. David was the speaker, yet David sought God (Ps 63:1)

Is 64:7 No one calls on your name. Isaiah was the speaker, and he called on God's name

Believers Earnestly Seek and Obey God [by God's Grace]

Josh 24:21,22 You are witnesses that you have chosen to serve the Lord." said of Israel

Mt 6:33 Seek ye first the Kingdom of God

Many seek God 1 Ch 16:10,11; 2 Chr 15:12; 30:19; Ezr 6:21; Ps 34:10; 69:32; 70:4; Pr 28:5; Zech 8:21,22; Mal 3:1

Set your heart on seeking God 2 Chr 11:16

David earnestly sought God Ps 63:1

1 Ch 22:19; 28:8,9; 2 Ch 7:14; 12:14; 14:4; 15:2; 15:13; 19:3

2 Chr 20:3,4; 31:21; 34:3; Hos 3:5

Ps 9:10; Isa 45:9 Promise not to forsake those who seek God

Ps 22:26 they who seek the LORD will praise Him.

Ps 24:6 Such is the generation of those who seek Him.

Ps 27:4 One thing I ask of the LORD, this is what I seek:

Ps 27:8 "My heart says of you, 'Seek his face!' Your face, LORD, I will seek."

Ps 40:16; 105:3,4 119:2,45 all who seek you rejoice and be glad

Ps 119:94 I have sought out your precepts

Pr 1:28 They will look but not find, since did not fear the Lord

Pr 8:17 Those who seek wisdom find her

Isa 51:1 you who seek the LORD (who is God addressing?)

Isa 55:6 Seek the LORD wile he may be found; call on him...

Jer 29:13 you will seek and find when you seek with all your heart

Jer 50:4 Israel and Judah will seek God

Hos 10:12 "...for it is time to seek the Lord"

Amos 5:4,6,14; 5:14 seek the Lord and live

People Choose Right and Wrong, to Please God or Not

Jn7:17 If anyone chooses to do God's will, he will find out whether my teaching comes from God or whether I speak on my own.

Jonah 2:8 "Those who cling to worthless idols forfeit the grace that could be theirs"

Ps 83:16 God does things in order that men may seek him

Ps 119:30 "I have chosen the way of truth;"

Ps 119:173 "for I have chosen thy precepts"

Isa 7:15,16 "He will eat curds and honey when he knows enough to reject the wrong and choose the right.

Isa 56:4 "To the eunuchs who keep my Sabbaths, who choose what pleases me..."

Pr 8:10, 16:16 We are commanded to choose wisdom's instruction instead of choice silver

Jn 5:35 John was a lamp that burned and gave light, and you chose for a time to enjoy his light

Jn 7:17 "If any one chooses to do God's will, he will find out..."

Acts 20:21 "...They must turn to God in repentance & have faith"

Eph 1:13 You also were included in Christ when you heard the word of truth.

Dt 30:19 Now [Israelites] choose life, that you and kids may live

Rom 11:32 God has bound all over to disobedience to have mercy on them all. (the word all pantas is the same in both cases)

2 Th 2:10 perishing ones deceived because they refuse to love the truth and so be saved.

Titus 2:11 "For the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to all men."

1 Peter 1:22 Now that you have purified yourselves by obeying the truth..."

2 Peter 1:10 "be all the more eager to make your calling and election sure."

Responsible for Not Seeking their God

Isa 9:12-13; Hos 7:10 God angry because the people have not returned to Him or sought Him. Is God angry for what He decreed they should not do, and angry at what He did not choose to enable them to do?

Jer 30:15 Because of your great guilt and many sins, God punished you

Ps 10:4 Wicked do not seek God

Ps 1:29 Since they hated knowledge and did not choose to fear the Lord. (Does not say if they could or could not choose. Does say they were responsible to choose the Lord and did not.)

Even Reprobates Actually Do Seek God, In Some Fashion

Isa 58:2 they seek me out ... as if they were a nation that does right

Hos 5:6; 5:15 Seek and not find, until they seek His face

Ezek 7:25,26

~Chr 12:14 2 Chr 15:13

Ezra 4:2 However, some can claim to seek God when they are not

We are commanded to call on the Lord

Gen 4:26

1 Sam 12:17

1 Sam 22:4

2 Ki 5:11

1 Chr 16:8

Job 13:

Ps 4:3

Ps 14:4 unbelievers do not call on God

A.W. Pink p.153 "Responsibility and Culpability lie in the indulgence of the depraved propensities, the free indulgence, for God does not force any to sin. The basis or ground of human responsibility is human ability. Earlier, on p.252, Pink distinguishes between physical ability versus moral and spiritual inability.

God hardens the hearts of those who want to be hardened.

"...in those people whom God has abandoned there is no freedom of will, (Heb 6:4-6; 10:38). "

Can reprobate, in at least some sense, see the utter helplessness of their situation? At least suicidal people can. Can the reprobate, see the need to seek out some god, though perhaps not the true God? People in false religions do so. Also, some false religions teach some form of God forgiving people, so in that sense those people see a need for God to forgive them, too. It seems that if Calvinists are correct, then if a reprobate person sees a need for God in their life, and seeks a mediator through Mary, Joseph Smith, Mohammed, etc., who can blame them, since Christ is not their mediator.

As A.W. Pink says, "Webster defines responsibility first, as 'liable to account'; second, as 'able to discharge an obligation'. Recalling R.C. Sproul's mention of the man jumping into the pit, and being responsible to paint a fence even though he was unable to paint the fence is at the heart of the Calvinists' dilemma. Sproul's example seems to indicate that it is still just to hold the man accountable because the man was once able to paint the fence. To a non-Calvinist, the illustration does not work, because from infancy on we were "never able to paint the fence." Calvinists could reply that the illustration still holds, because Adam was once able to "paint the fence" and that counts in place of us being once able to paint the fence.

The Calvinist Curt Daniel writes: "Underlying these objections [against the doctrine of Calvinism] is the secret (and sometimes open) objection, 'That's not fair!' This is worst of all, for it is a direct accusation against God. It mistakenly presupposed that Man has rights, when he has none." (Curt Daniel Biblical Calvinism p.10).

Some (but not all) Calvinists are very sensitive about Calvinism. A criticism of their theological opinions is considered an accusation against God Himself. However, even sensitive Calvinists ought to be interested in what Scripture says, as well as Calvinist rebuttals to scripture.

One of the things Curt Daniel is correct about, is that one of the core objections many have to Calvinism is that it makes God appear unfair. To be more precise, it appears to contradict what God's word declares about God's justice and working.

Now if some person has a strange standard of justice, and God contradicts their standard, that is of no consequence. However, Christians assert (or ought to assert) that not only is God just, but that He is just according to His standard, revealed in His word. In other words, God being Just is not an incomprehensible tautology, but God is just, as He describes justice.

Many verses say, in general, that God is just: 2 Th 1:6; Dt32:4; Rom3:5; Heb 6:10

God judges impartially: 1 Pet1:17; ~Jms 3:17.

There is no favoritism with Him: Rom2:11; Col 3:25; Eph6:9.

Specifically, there is no favoritism by

nationality Acts 10:34-35

being Jewish or non-Jewish: Rom 2:10-11

gender

Ezek 18 shows that a person is not declared guilty for the sin of somebody else. Now people are cursed through Adam, condemnation came to all men through Adam (Rom 5:18), and people suffer and can be cursed for another's actions, but Ezek 18 shows that in the Judgment, God does not pronounce guilt for someone else's actions.

Sin is not counted where there is no law.

Some Reprobate have some desire to seek God.

Now they may seek God on their own terms, unknown to them, their seeking may not be sincere, etc. but they at least have some desired to seek God.

Dt 21:8 the elders of the closest city needed to sacrifice a heifer for an unsolved murder, and the blood (of the man) shall be forgiven them. It likely was someone in the city who committed the crime, but the elders, representing the city, are innocent because they had no knowledge of who did it.

Justice versus Selective Generosity in Matt 20.

Has God created many on this earth, with no opportunity, from birth until death, to escape being tortured in the Lake of Fire Forever? Calvinists say YES! The answer to this question is one of the six key differences between Calvinist Christians and non-Calvinist Christians. Calvinists do not teach this horrible thing out of spite or meanness, but because they believe that is what scripture teaches. This tract will show what Calvinists actually, say, why they believe Romans 9 teaches this, and why they are wrong.

"Many people talk as if salvation were a matter of human birthright. And, forgetful of the fact that man had and lost his supremely favorable chance in Adam, they inform us that God would be unjust if He did not give all guilty creatures an opportunity to be saved." (Loraine Boettner The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination p.116.)

"Multitudes were left with no chance to hear the Gospel, and consequently died in their sins. If God had intended to save them undoubtedly he would have sent them the means of salvation." (ibid p.117)

Boettner differentiates between the reprobate who at least have an opportunity for the external means of grace (hearing the Gospel) and all reprobate, who have no opportunity internally to receive it. Note that the reprobate have no opportunity, and God is under no obligation to give everyone an opportunity.

However, in the same book Boettner appears inconsistent with himself on page 120. "This, of course, does not mean that all of the lost shall suffer the same degree of punishment. We believe that from a common zero point there will be all degrees of reward and all degrees of punishment, and that a person's reward or punishment will, to a certain extent, be based on the opportunity that he has had in this world." (Boettner p.120) He goes on to refer to Luke 10:l12-134 and 12:47,48

I the preceding paragraph is correct (and I think that it is), then how severe can the punishment of the lost be if fundamentally, they all had no opportunity. Furthermore, if there are light punishments for those with no opportunity, then if all the lost are tormented forever in the lake of fire, does that mean a "cool" time while they are being tormented forever for those who had no opportunity to accept the Gospel that Christ died for men but not for them.

Does God have some type of "special grace" toward some of the reprobate. Since they do not accept it, it leads to greater accountability and guilt. See Jesus and 2nd Peter.

Offer from Bible

Limited Atonement

Almost all Calvinists believe Christians should not say the following:

Christ died for you (perhaps He did not)

Christ died for every person on the earth

Jesus loves the little children, all the children of the world

God loves everyone

You should offer the Gospel to people

Many Calvinists say you should not invite people to come to Christ. Other Calvinists say that you should invite people.

A.W. Pink says, "Concerning the character and contents of the Gospel the utmost confusion prevails today. The Gospel is not an "offer" to be bandied around by evangelistic peddlers. The Gospel is no mere invitation, but a proclamation,... No man is asked to believe that Christ died for him in particular. ... The Gospel, in brief, is this: Christ died for sinners, you are a sinner, believe in Christ, and you shall be saved." (p.209 italics in the original). Note the subtlety here: Since Christ died for sinners, and you are a sinner, a sinner could easily think Christ died for them. However, Pink really thinks that Christ died for some sinners, of which you may or not be one of those. To round out Pink's view, Pink believed in preaching the Gospel (p.210), and that we should be active and not fatalistic in preaching, and doing Christian work.

In sharp contrast to this, John Calvin wrote, "The mercy of God is offered equally to those who believe and to those who believe not." (Payne p.21)

In the booklet Sinners, Jesus Will Receive, the forward by James Boyce says "According to the way hyper-Calvinists think about such things today, Jesus must have made a mistake when he explained so much of the gospel to Nicodemus, as recorded in John 3. ... Nicodemus was not born again. So according to the way these persons think, Jesus should have stopped the discussion right there. 'Come back later when you are born again,' he should have said.... Jesus knew precisely what he was doing. ... Pastor Bill Payne of Canada knows this and wishes all other Calvinists knew it too, which is why he has written this small booklet. Particularly, it grieves him that so many use good theology to undercut the responsibility we have as Christians to do the equally good work of inviting sinners to come to Jesus Christ."

William Payne, in his booklet, Sinners, Jesus will Receive, on p.23 he says, "The problem of holding the balance between the Reformed faith, the doctrine of limited atonement being a part of that, and the universal offer was also seen in England. This may be seen in the history of Andrew Fuller, one of the great names forever identified with William Carey in the work of missions. Fuller, who was born in 1754, had been brought up under a ministry influenced by the type of preaching which did not believe in the universal offer. It was, as one expressed it "preaching of the Gill types." Fuller was called to the pastorate at the age of 21, and early in his ministry he received help from the writings of Bunyan and Gill. However he soon realized that there was a great difference between the two men. Whilst they both adhered firmly to Calvinistic theology, limited atonement included, Bunyan obviously felt no hesitancy in inviting all sinners everywhere to come to Christ, whereas Gill would never do such a thing. After much prayer and study Fuller came to the conclusion that Bunyan was scriptural in this, and that Gill was not. Fuller's convictions eventually led to his writing the famous book called The Gospel Worthy of All Acceptation, and it was a direct result of this book that Carey went with the gospel to India.... We would add this note in leaving this brief historical sketch, that in departing from the hyper-Calvinistic position where there was no free offer of the gospel men such as Boston and Fuller did not become Arminians!" p.23

On p.22 he says, "The fact that hyper-Calvinism had gripped much of the Church of Scotland at that point is attested to by the fact that the republishing of the Marrow caused a great stir, and that it was condemned by the general assembly of the Church of Scotland."

The round out Payne's view, Payne says that inviting sinners to Christ should not be confused with an altar call (p.8) and he is against altar calls.

The Westminster Confession of Faith says, "He freely offereth unto sinners life and salvation by Jesus Christ, requiring of them faith in Him that they might be saved."

Curt Daniel

Bible

If one could cease to be a Christian, then Christ failed to do the will of the Father. Drawn by the Father p.40

Though I am not a Calvinist, I can appreciate some of the good and useful insights of Calvinists. Here are a just a few.

"Just as it is necessary for the sun to give off as much heat if only one plant is to grow upon the earth as if the earth is to be covered with vegetation, so it was necessary for Christ to suffer as much if only one soul was to be saved as if a large number or even all mankind were to be saved." (Boettner p.152)

A friend once asked me if I was more Calvinistic or Arminian. I told him that was like asking which of two inadequate over-simplifications I wanted to be closer to believe. Just as any curve cannot adequately encompass a three-dimensional object, both fail to "do justice" to the three dimensions of sovereignty, responsibility, and the free-agency we are responsible for.

"Those who cling to worthless idols forfeit the grace that could be theirs." Jonah 2:8 (NIV)

Non-Calvinist and many Calvinist Christians (but not hyper-Calvinists) can agree on the following. The cross of Jesus has universal aspects and definitive aspects. Universal aspects are:

all are commanded to obey the Gospel of Jesus (1 Thess &&)

It is to be preached to all

All should be invited to come

the cross was sufficient to save all mankind (Boettner p.152)

One cannot set a limit to the atonement's value or power (Boettner p.151)

Definitive aspects are:

Before the earth's creation, God knew all who would be saved

Before the earth's creation, God knew all who would be lost

The cross was efficient to save only the elect (Boettner p.152)

Job 34:10,12, Gen 18:25; Dt 32:4; 1 Jn 2:16; 1 Jn 1:5

not proximate, efficient caused of sin (Boettner p.241,249)

"neither is God the author of sin." (Westminster Confession III:1)

"God is not the Author of sin" Pink p.252

Calvinist William Tucker writes, "Whatever was the first cause or occasion of sin, it must be entirely free from the fault or blame; for, if fault of blame was in the cause, sin must be in, and then this flagrant contradiction must follow, that sin was before it was. But this was impossible. And, therefore, God may be the first cause or occasion of sin, and yet be absolutely free from the fault or blame." Curt Daniel p.230 adds, This fits the Biblical data with inescapable logic.

Daniel adds that God is not the approver of sin, and God is not the "blameworthy author of sin." (p.226)

I will leave it as an exercise for the read to understand the inescapable logic.

"but when He [God] decrees that sin shall take place, His secret will respects only ifs actual occurrence to serve His good purpose." (Pink p.245) Presumably, God decrees the means of sin as well as the ends.

"not only did His omniscient eye see Adam eating of the forbidden fruit, but He decreed beforehand that he should do so." Pink p.249

"though God has decreed man's sins, yet is man responsible not to commit them, and blameable because he does." (Pink p.252)

Calvinists and Non-Calvinists agree that God could prevent sin, but chooses not to do so. (Boettner p.241) Floyd E. Hamilton in Boettner p.241) That can be a smokescreen for the key issue: Calvinists believe God is the Ultimate Cause of Sin, and is He ultimately responsible for what He decreed?

As Boettner (p.240) says, "Unless sin occurs according to the divine purpose and permission of God, it occurs by chance." He does not believe it occurs by chance.

(Boettner p.238) We believe that God actually rules in the affairs of men, that His decrees are absolute, and they include all events."

1. Did God actively decree every event?

2. Is God ultimately responsible for all He decrees?

3. If not, what decrees is God responsible for, and what decrees is God not responsible for?

4. How is God the willing, active, first cause things He is not responsible for, such as the "evil" decrees.

5. Why cannot God decree only to permit some things instead of having to actively decree some things, as the Calvinist Charles Hodge teaches? This would effectively answer the previous questions.

Let there be no misunderstanding; this is not to be taken as a criticism, accusation, or attack our precious Lord or the doctrines He revealed in the Bible. Error should be exposed, even when it hides under the claim of truth. This is not an attack on all of Calvinism, as Charles Hodge could answer all these questions easily. Rather, this is a criticism on sloppy thinking.

Calvinists often say that any other system besides Calvinism is inconsistent. For example, "Only the infralapsarian [Calvinist] scheme is self-consistent or consistent with other facts." (Boettner p.127)

However, others say differently.

"J. I. Packer observes, 'It is an apparent incompatibility between two apparent truths. An antinomy exists when a pair of principles stand side by side, seemingly irreconcilable, yet both undeniable ... You see that each must be true on its own, but you do not see how they can both be true together." (Curt Daniel p.213)

Curt Daniel (p.213) said, "It should be obvious that this is a grand paradox. Divine sovereignty and human responsibility are both true, but we cannot see entirely how. They are like two parallel lines or two sides of the same coin. They are complementary, not contradictory. But we don't see entirely how. Nor can we."

"When asked how he reconciled the two, C. H. Spurgeon replied, 'I never try to reconcile friends.'" (Curt Daniel p.213)

Abraham Kuyper once remarked that sovereignty/responsibility is not precisely a paradox, but rather a hyperdox. ... 'Para' means alongside, 'hyper' means above." (Daniel p.213)

One hyper-Calvinist, W. J. Styles, writes, "Since human responsibility and divine sovereignty do not simply involve a paradox but are destructive to each other, one must be untrue." Styles also said that lack of faith is not a sin. (Curt Daniel p.214). Few Calvinists are this extreme, though.

One Calvinist who, while admitting to solvable difficulties and a need for a 'balance of truth', does not admit to any paradoxes or inconsistencies, is A.W. Pink. Here is what he wrote.

"He decrees that sin shall take place, His secret will respects only its actual occurrence to serve His good purpose. Thus the secret and revealed will of God respect entirely different objects. God's will of decree is not His will in the same sense as His will of command is. Therefore, there is no difficulty in supposing that one may be contrary to the other. His will, in both senses, is His inclination.

...

God wills to permit sin is evident, for He does permit it. Surely none will say that God Himself does what He does not will to do." (Pink p.246)

To sum up, God decrees that sin takes place, commands that it does not, His secret and revealed wills are contrary to each other, but they do not conflict with each other, as proved by the fact the revealed will is used to accomplish the secret will. It is left as an exercise to the reader to see that there is no difficulty.

Dr. J. Gresham Machen (Boettner p.333) "A Calvinist is constrained to regard the Arminian theology as a serious impoverishment of the Scripture doctrine of divine grace; and equally serious is the view which the Arminian must hold to the doctrines of the Reformed Churches." Christianity and Liberalism, p.51.

On p.221 he says we are to pray not to inform God, but because God commands us, God uses our prayers to accomplish His purposes, it is a high privilege and our duty, though there is still much mystery in it. So far, so good.

Robert Dabney said, "Prayer is not intended to produce a change in God, but in us."

Does prayer change things? If so, what does change when we pray. Some Calvinists answer, the only change is in the person praying.

Remembering that a person will be saved if and only if God decrees it, should we pray that a person be saved. Acts 26:29??

We can all agree with Boettner that [Biblical] Predestination is not Fatalism. However, when authors such as Boettner and Pink talk of God's Sovereignty in ways that limit God allowing any detail beyond His express decree, they lay themselves open to the charge of theistic fatalism.

This inconsistency is apparently not widely recognized. Indeed, The Concise Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, under fatalism, describes non-theistic fatalism. Under Freedom, Free Will and determinism, they describe a form of fatalism which they call theological determinism, in which all events are determined by God, as taught by theologians such as Jonathan Edwards.

In contrast to this, see Lk 11:13 says "...how much more will your Father in heaven give the Holy Spirit to those who ask him!"

double predestination verses passing others by Erickson p.917-918

Reprobation a "horrible decree Calvin's Institutes of the Christian Religion book 3 ch. 23 section 7.

OFFER Titus 2:11

All are to obey the Gospel 1 Peter 4:17; 2 Thess 1:8

Semi-Pelagian verses ... you are counted worthy

2 Thess 1:5,11

Gal 6:10 "...let us do good to all people, especially to those who belong to the family of believers."

Eph 4:6 One God and Father of all. Also Eph 3:14

Heb 12:14 make every effort to live at peace with all men

Heb 12:23 God is the judge of all men

Titus 2:11 For the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to all men.

Heb 9:7 sacrifices for sins committed in ignorance

Heb 6:10 "God is not unjust; he will not forget your work and the love you have shown him as you have helped his people and continue to help them."

2 Thess 1:6 God is just.

Eph 6:10 no favoritism with God

God does not judge by external appearance, but at the heart. Gal 2:6; 1 Sam 16:7

"God cannot be mocked. A man reaps what he sows." Gal 6:8

Heb 2:3 "...how shall we escape if we ignore such a great salvation?" This implies we have the ability to chose whether to ignore this salvation or not.

Limited atonement "by the grace of God he might taste death for everyone. In bringing many sons to glory..." Heb 2:9,10

died to the law to live for God. Gal 2:20

crucified the sinful nature. Gal 5:24

"...the whole world is a prisoner of sin" Gal 3:22

prisoners of the law Gal 3:23

slavery under the basic principles of the world. Gal 4:3

Heb 2:18 Jesus is able to help those [people] who are being tempted. Thus it is not that Jesus is unable to help the lost who are being tempted.

1 Tim 6:20

2 Pet 1:10

1 Tim 1:13 Paul was shown mercy because he acted in ignorance and unbelief.

Fight

1 Tim 1:18; 6:21

1 Tim 5:21 Do nothing out of partiality and favoritism

God can be rejected. 1 Thess 4:8

1 Thess 2:15 some displease God

some believers are destined for certain trials. 1 Thess 3:3

Eph 3:12 "we may approach God with freedom and confidence"

Gal 1:6 some can desert God

Gal 2:4 The freedom we have in Christ Jesus

Justice: inheritance is one of those things that

"God in his grace gave it to Abraham through a promise" (Gal 3:18)

Gal 5:1 "It is for freedom that Christ has set us free."

Gal 5:13 do not use your freedom to indulge in the sinful nature

Everything does not come from God.

Bad teaching does not Gal 5:8

Temptation does not James

Interestingly enough, some delusions ultimately do

Robot came from a play by Karel Capek, a Bohemian playwright, in Rossom's Universal Robots in 1921. It comes from the Czech word robota, for work.

Christians are working very hard, preaching, discipling, praying, etc. to accomplish what God has decreed will certainly happen. Why?

Ignorance: God has not told us His decrees.

If we knew, we would not need to work so hard

A snake may kill a person, but a snake is not eternally punished for what it was made to do. But we are responsible. Why? Pink (p. &&&) says because we all have knowledge and we are rational creatures.

Mormons Num 23:19 kinds of

Pink a fundamental test of orthodoxy?

Free will 1. voluntary choice or decision <I do this of my own free will> 2: freedom of humans to make choices that are not determined by prior causes or by divine intervention

Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary Mirriam Webster 1989.

First, note that is says determined by prior causes or divine intervention. It does not say that prior causes and divine intervention do not influence our choices.

Note that it does not specify if humans can make some decisions or every decision without them being determined by prior causes of divine intervention. Thus, there is an ambiguity here. One person can say they believe in free will because they believe at least some decisions we make are not determined by prior causes and divine intervention. Someone else might say they do not believe in free will, because they do not believe every choice we make is not determined by prior cause or divine intervention.

Regenerate (1541) 2: spiritually reborn or converted.

Arminian (1598) of or relating to Arminius or his doctrines opposing the absolute predestination of strict Calvinism and maintaining the possibility of salvation for all.

You know, "saints" is a Biblical concept; all Christians are saints of God. The Catholic Church believes in saints, but they have thoroughly misdefined the term. Though they may accuse Protestants of not believing in saints, Protestants do; it is just a very different definition.

"God's Sovereignty" is a Biblical concept; nothing happens except what God permits, and God actively decrees and accomplishes everything He chooses. Calvinists believe in God's Sovereignty, but many of them have thoroughly misdefined the term to mean that God must actively ordain [i.e. choose] every detail of every event that comes to pass.

For various views on original sin one can read the following:

Christian Theology by Millard Erickson. Baker Books 1985.

Boettner, Loraine. The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination. Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co. 1932.

Geisler, N. and T. Howe. When Critics Ask. Victor Books 1992.

Kelly, J.N.D. Early Christian Doctrines. Harper & Row 1978.

One could read the this chapter on Adam's sin and make some unwarranted conclusions.

So if we are not guilty for Adam's sins, does that mean that all of Calvinism falls? No, we have not proved that. Besides this and total fatalistic control, there are three other key differences between Calvinism and non-Calvinism that could conceivably still stand, even if these requirements fall.

If we are not guilty for Adam's actions, does that mean human nature is not depraved because there is no original sin? No, because of Adam's sin, we all have a sinful nature that brings about condemnation as sure as if we were judged guilty for Adam's sin.

"...Karlstadt does not gloss over Christ's words to children in Matthew 18, so he must reject the imputation of Adam's sin. In Sabbat the human penance for Adam's sin is mentioned in the form of labouring in the sweat of one's brow. The results of Adam's sin remain but the sin itself is not imputed." p.110

Ambrose of Milan Expos ev. Luc.7:234. On the Decease of Satyrus II 6 (p.175)

(Ambrose also believed that pre-Fall Adam was a heavenly being, breathing ethereal air. Our personal sins are remitted during baptism, and original sin is remitted by washing of the feet)

Unfortunately, Athanasius also believed one could be made free from sin in this life and that by God's grace John the Baptist and Jeremiah were free from sin from the womb! Four Discourses Against Arians III 33 p.411))

"...their inclination toward evil and death cannot be understood apart from their connection with Adam's sin and the fact that he has transmitted to us a sin with which we are all born afflicted, a sin which is the 'death of the soul.' Because of this certainty of faith, the Church baptizes for the remission of sins even tiny infants who have not committed personal sin." (taken from the Council of Trent DS1514.) item 403 p.102.

"And that is why original sin is called 'Sin' only in an analogical sense: it is 'contracted' and not 'committed' - a state and not an act." item 404 p.102.

See also item 402 p.101.

All true Christians agree that all people except Jesus sin, and have a sinful nature. This corrupt, sinful nature was inherited from Adam and Eve in the fall. Heart, will, and intellect are all affected. As drunkenness and drugs kill brain cells, impair judgment, give people a craving for more, and make sobriety a difficult choice, so sin has radically altered humanity.

All Christians agree people are accountable to God for their sinful actions and sinful desires, but are we also accountable to God for the sins of Adam, Eve, and our ancestors?

Ambrose of Milan (340-397 A.D.) On the Mysteries 6 (p.321) shows Adam's guilt removed after baptism by washing the feet.

Well, perhaps we cannot agree with all of that. Calvinists often say that repentance and believing in Jesus are not required for salvation, only grace. To some Calvinists, repentance and faith are "works" that are no more a part of getting saved than other works; and, of course, we are not saved by works. However, this topic is destined for another paper.

Well, perhaps we cannot agree with all of that. Calvinists often teach the error that faith is just another work, contrary to Rom 3:27; 4:5, Gal 2:16; 3:2-14, and Eph 2:8. However, this topic is destined for another paper.

Jeremiah 17:4 "Through your own fault you will lose the inheritance I gave you...."

"It is not in harmony with the Scripture ideas of God that innocent men, men who are not contemplated as sinners, should be foreordained to eternal misery and death. The decrees concerning the saved and the lost should not be looked upon as based merely on abstract sovereignty. God is truly sovereign, but this sovereignty is not exercised in an arbitrary way. Rather it is a sovereignty exercised in harmony with His other attributes, especially His justice, holiness, and wisdom. God cannot commit sin; and in that respect He is limited, although it would be more accurate to speak of His inability to commit sin as a perfection. There is, of course, mystery in connection with either system (Infralapsarian Calvinism and Supralapsarian Calvinism); but the supralapsarian system seems to pass beyond mystery and into contradiction." (Loraine Boettner p.128)

"Supralapsarianism goes to as great an extreme on the one side as does universalism on the other." Loraine Boettner p.127)

Are A.W. Pink and John Gill really Calvinists? A great number of Calvinists would say "Yes", but read a different view of Calvinism.

"It is also vital to see predestination in light of the Fall. All Christians agree that God's decree of predestination was made before the Fall. Some argue that God first predestinated some people to salvation and others to damnation and then decreed the Fall to make sure that some folks would perish. Sometimes this dreadful view is even attributed to Calvinism. Such an idea was repugnant to Calvin and is equally repugnant to all orthodox Calvinists. The notion is sometimes called 'hyper-Calvinism.' But even that is an insult. This view has nothing to do with Calvinism. Rather than hyper-Calvinism, it is anti-Calvinism." R.C. Sproul Chosen by God 1987 p.96.

On the other hand, A.W. Pink writes: "...not only had God a perfect foreknowledge of the outcome of Adam's trial, not only did His omniscient eye see Adam eating of the forbidden fruit, but He decreed beforehand that he should do so. This is evident not only from the general fact that nothing happens save that which the Creator and governor of the universe has eternally purposed, but also from the express declaration of Scripture that Christ as a Lamb 'verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world' (1 Peter 1:20)." (A.W. Pink The Sovereignty of God p.249.italics in original)

The point of this paper is not to split hairs on semantic terms, but honestly to ask, "Should the majority of Calvinists be recommending the writings of Pink, Gill, and other extremists, you would they find their teachings repugnant, too?"

In The Evangelical Dictionary of Theology (W.A. Elwell) under Supralapsarianism, it says "The term 'supralapsarianism' comes from the Latin words supra and lapsus; the decree of predestination was considered to be 'above' (supra) or logically 'before' the decree concerning the fall (lapsus), while the infralapsarians views it as 'below' (infra) or logically 'after' the decree concerning the fall."

Loraine Boettner (The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination p.126-127) explains the difference thus: "According to the infralapsarian view the order of events was as follows: God proposes (1) to create; (2) to permit the fall; (3) to elect to eternal life and blessedness a great multitude out of this mass of fallen men, and to leave the others, as He left the Devil and the fallen angels, to suffer the just punishment of their sins; (4) to give His Son, Jesus Christ, for the redemption of the elect; ... According to the supralapsarian view the order of events was: (1) to elect some createable men (that is, men who were to be created) to life and to condemn others to destruction; (2) to create; (3) to permit the fall; (4) to send Christ to redeem the elect;... "

Influential Supralapsarians included Theodore Beza, Arminius' main opponent, Francis Gomarus, John Gill, and A.W. Pink.

R.C. Sproul is not a lone voice among Calvinists, Loraine Boettner says similar things. In The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination p.128-129, Boettner says that only 1 out of a 100 Calvinists are supralapsarians, but supralapsarians are true Calvinists, too.

On p.127 Loraine Boettner writes "Supralapsarianism goes to as great an extreme on the one side as does universalism on the other. Only the infralapsarian scheme is self-consistent or consistent with other facts."

William Payne, in his booklet, Sinners, Jesus will Receive, on p.23 he says, "The problem of holding the balance between the Reformed faith, the doctrine of limited atonement being a part of that, and the universal offer was also seen in England. This may be seen in the history of Andrew Fuller, one of the great names forever identified with William Carey in the work of missions. Fuller, who was born in 1754, had been brought up under a ministry influenced by the type of preaching which did not believe in the universal offer. It was, as one expressed it "preaching of the Gill types." Fuller was called to the pastorate at the age of 21, and early in his ministry he received help from the writings of Bunyan and Gill. However he soon realized that there was a great difference between the two men. Whilst they both adhered firmly to Calvinistic theology, limited atonement included, Bunyan obviously felt no hesitancy in inviting all sinners everywhere to come to Christ, whereas Gill would never do such a thing. After much prayer and study Fuller came to the conclusion that Bunyan was scriptural in this, and that Gill was not. Fuller's convictions eventually led to his writing the famous book called The Gospel Worthy of All Acceptation, and it was a direct result of this book that Carey went with the gospel to India.... We would add this note in leaving this brief historical sketch, that in departing from the hyper-Calvinistic position where there was no free offer of the gospel men such as Boston and Fuller did not become Arminians!" p.23

On p.22 he says, "The fact that hyper-Calvinism had gripped much of the Church of Scotland at that point is attested to by the fact that the republishing of the Marrow caused a great stir, and that it was condemned by the general assembly of the Church of Scotland."

In his book, The Sovereignty of God, A.W. Pink says he is not a hyper-Calvinist (p.105,261), but in the last sentence of the book on p.261, he writes that he would rather be called a "hyper-Calvinist, than to be found repudiating God's truth by reducing the Divinely-efficacious atonement to a mere fiction." (i.e. believing Christ died for all but it is only effective for those who believe.) Most Calvinists would NOT say it is better to fall into the heresy of hyper-Calvinism than Arminianism.

While Pink says we are to preach the gospel to every creature (p.102,209), he also says on p.209 "The Gospel is not an 'offer' to be bandied around by evangelistic peddlers. The Gospel is no mere invitation, but a proclamation, ... No man is asked to believe that Christ died for him in particular. The Gospel, in brief, is this: Christ died for sinners, you are a sinner, believe in Christ, and you shall be saved."

Jonah 2:8 "Those who cling to worthless idols forfeit the grace that could be theirs." (NIV)

Commenting on Mark 14:24, John Calvin wrote, "This is my blood that was shed for the many does not mean a part of the world, only, but the whole human race." vol.3 p.128-139

One Calvinist (Boettner I think) wrote that people debate whether Calvin taught universal or limited atonement. Perhaps "this debate" is because some people do not understand that Calvin (and the Bible) teach both.

Christ suffered and died for all to whom the offer of the Gospel is sincerely made. His suffering was not any less than those who hold only to Universal atonement. However, since God foreknew the elect, the atonement is only applied to the sins of those who by faith put their trust in Christ.

Curt Daniel, who espouses Infralapsarian Calvinism, writes well on the complementary nature of the two aspects in his dissertation (p.371)

A This is another argument that needs refinement. It can easily be misused. It is summed up in the famous lines from A.M. Toplady's hymn, "Rock of Ages", viz, "Payment cannot God twice demand, First at my bleeding surety's hand, and then again at mine." If Christ paid the debt for all men, then all men must necessarily be saved. If someone goes to Hell, then God demands payment twice -first at the Cross, and then in Hell.

B. But this has weaknesses. First, it is nowhere taught in Scripture, explicitly or implicitly. Why cannot God hold men extra guilty on account of the death of Christ? I would rephrase the argument as follows. Christ died in one sense for all men. Some are given the gift of faith to believe in Christ crucified, and this ratifies the payment of their debt. The rest do not receive faith, for the atonement is never applied to them. Does that mean their debt was totally paid? No, it means that the account was never finally settled. The potential payment for them was never ratified. But since there was a payment in some sense, this redounds to greater condemnation. Calvin spoke of such persons as "doubly culpable". They are punished first for their sins, and secondly because Christ provided a payment that they never accepted.

C. The Double Payment argument lies behind John Owen's famous "Treble Choice" argument, viz: Christ died either for (1) all the sins of all men; (2) all the sins of some men, or (3) some of the sins of all men. He then argued that, (1) if the first were correct, then why are not all men saved? (2) IF the third were correct, then no man will be saved, for there would remain some sins still on the books. (3) Hence, only the second can be true, namely, Christ died for all the sins of only the elect.

D. This sounds like impeccable logic, but it has flaws. First, Scripture never says that a man goes to Hell because there was no atonement provided for him. Rather, some men perish, and their punishment is compounded because they rejected the atonement. Second, the reasons why men are said to perish are twofold: (A) They were not chosen, (B) They did not believe. Third, it could be counter-argued that in a sense Christ died for all men, but HE does not apply this to all men. The limitation was not in the provision, but in election and the application.

9. Conclusion.

A. Just as the Universal aspect of the atonement does not negate the Particular, so the Particular does not negate the Universal. In the last study we showed that there is a sense in which Christ died for all. In this study, there is a sense in which He died especially for His bride out of special grace according to the Covenant of Redemption.

What exactly is a Calvinist? Let's first develop a pragmatic, working definition of the Arminianism, in order to better define Calvinism, and to see the fundamental distinction between Calvinists and non-Calvinists.

Calvinists have two different definitions of Arminianism:

1. "Radical Arminianism", meaning a theology where one can lose one's salvation, and the reverse of the "TULIP"

2. "General Arminianism" meaning all professing conservative Christian theology that is not cultic or Semi-Pelagianism.

Some Calvinists would already disagree with this, for I have been told that "Arminianism, in its pure form is a cult", "Arminianism is the spirit of the Antichrist", and the only difference between the two are "consistent Arminians" and "inconsistent Arminians." Nevertheless, there are two senses of the word. General Arminians rarely call themselves Arminians. Some even call themselves 3, and 4-point Calvinists, and "Calminians."

While some cults and non-Biblical groups, such as The Way, have "Arminian" tendencies and origins, others, such as Barth/Brunner Neo-Orthodoxy and Rev. Moon's Unification Church, have Calvinistic origins. (Jehovah's witnesses and Mormons have neither, but rather are Pelagian.) Since this paper deals with key differences among genuine Christians though, we will exclude these groups from discussion.

There are many different kinds of Calvinists, but what is the common thread that distinguishes Calvinism? Many Calvinists point to the "TULIP" acronym, also called by them "The Doctrines of Grace." While the "TULIP" is a good touchstone to demonstrate some of what is necessary for a person to believe to be a Calvinist, many non-Calvinists believe many parts of the "TULIP also. Amyraldians are professing Calvinists who hold to both universal and limited aspects of the atonement, in some sense. Many 4 1/2 point Calvinists, who are actually general Arminians, say the same. Thus, "TULIP" is necessary to make one a Calvinist, but not sufficient to make one a Calvinist.

"TULIP" is problematic for many infralapsarian Calvinists on the other side, too. They are uncomfortable calling hyper-Calvinists true Calvinists. Yet, from what I observe, hyper-Calvinists and Calvinists share the same understanding of TULIP.

One Calvinist said that true Calvinism differs from both hyper-Calvinism and Arminianism in that Calvinism alone asserts that the scope of men's responsibility and ability differ. Arminians say man is responsible for what he is able to do, and hyper-Calvinists say man is neither responsible nor able to do anything. Sounds good, but this is not actually true. Arminians do not say people are able to do what is required of them, without God's help, and both Calvinists and Arminians says that the elect are able to do what is required with regard to salvation because of God's involvement. Hyper-calvinists, such as A.W. Pink, do vigorously assert that man is responsible. so we need to keep on looking for a distinction.

I have proposed a second acronym to show what differentiates Calvinists (including hyper-Calvinists) from non-Calvinists:

Total Control - God's Sovereignty Misdefined

Humans are Blamed for Adam's Guilt

Only Grace, Faith is Just Another Work

Responsibility without Respondability, the Core of Calvinism

No Mediator, Offer, Option, or Tender mercy for the reprobate

To me, a person who believes three or more of these things is definitely a Calvinist. Self-critiquing this acronym though, there are some difficulties. Many Catholics and eastern Orthodox also believe the second point. Many Lutherans, who are not Calvinists, also believe the first point. Furthermore, some mild Calvinists might disagree with T and O. Thus, just as using "TULIP" to differentiate Calvinists gets fuzzy on four of the five points, using "THORN" to differentiate Calvinists gets fuzzy on at least two of the points. Furthermore, even if "THORN" did not get fuzzy at all, it serves more as a sufficient description of the Calvinist mindset than a necessary definition of key differences.

In attempting to understand what makes all Calvinists "tick", I very tentatively propose the following definition:

Calvinists are those who, in their sincere desire to have their theology totally conform to the word of God, and seeing that God's ways in the Bible do not match human preconceptions of justice, have let go of all conceptions of divine justice.

Many Arminians wrestle with how God can be fair according to their concept of fairness; Calvinists do not. Make no mistake; I have never read or heard of a single Calvinist who claims God is unjust. Rather, given both our finite and sinful limitations, God's justice toward our responsibility is a total mystery.

Arminians, in general, try to understand the balance between God's love and justice. Wrath, often little studied, is an outgrowth of God's justice.

Calvinists in general, try to understand the balance between God's love and wrath. God's justice, often little studied, is an outgrowth of God's wrath.

A telling critique of Calvinism is that it:

 Makes God's justice totally incomprehensible (Ezek 18?)

‚ Makes God as the one who willfully chooses and determines, and in some sense desires, evil and sin.

ƒ Makes us into robots as far as salvation is concerned.

„ Makes intercessory prayer into nothing more than a pacifier.

… Makes the Gospel offer to all either inappropriate or insincere. (Titus 2:11) and the weeping of Jesus and Peter appear silly.

† Makes God's emotional reaction in wrath appear to be simply His anger at His own decisions.

‡ Last and most important, it generally requires gross distortion of scriptures, such as 1 John 2:2, 2 Pet 2:1, Rom 3:23-24, Ezek 18, 1 Tim 2:4-6, 1 Tim 4:10, and others.

If you stop demanding that God conform to your conceptions of divine justice, that is a good thing. However, if you replace that requirement people try to make of God with the idea that God is not just in any humanly recognizable sense, that can lead to severe problems. For example, if we are to be Christ-like, should we be fair as God is fair? Should we hold up as heroes men who slaughter entire Catholic towns in Ireland? Calvinists who torture and kill genuine believers who differ with them on infant baptism? I do not believe they were being inconsistent, rather, Calvinists were being horribly consistent. If God is primarily full of wrath toward all, His wrath being overridden by His great love for some, were those Calvinists being untrue to their theology God to torture and kill those who were reprobate in their minds?

Anyway, if you take away requiring God to be fair according to your standards, you have to replace that with some belief. Instead of replacing it with "incomprehensible justice", you should replace it with the following

"We can partially and accurately understand about God's justice, just as we can understand about His power, wrath, and love. God may not be just according to some twisted human standard, but God is certainly just according to the revelation in His word."

A telling critique of general Arminianism is that it makes:

 God as unwilling to ever override our will. (What about Paul?)

‚ God must meet our standards of justice, including that He must be equally generous and loving to all (See Mt 20:1-16)

ƒ Makes salvation man-centered, and God as passive.

„ Makes God the victim of evil wrought upon His creation.

… Makes God's emotional reaction in love appear to be based on our merits.

† Most important of all, ignores the impact God's teaching of various scriptures, including Rom 9 and 11.

Many may insist that God conform to their preconceptions of justice. If you found out that God did not choose to meet your standards of justice, what would you do? Would you still love Him as much, believing in faith that His standards were much better than yours, even though you did not understand? Have you studied about God's justice, or do you just take for granted that God sees things the way you do?

In the books of Mark, John, Acts, 1 & 2 Corinthians, Philippians, 1, 2 Peter, and 1, 2, 3 John, the words wrath and anger are only found four times, and one of those is man's anger, and a second is Jesus' anger mixed with compassion. If you have studied over ten times about God's wrath and the TULIP, and have never really studied what the Bible is trying to teach us about God's justice to all, you should diligently study this in God's Word.

Jesus spoke more of Hell than of heaven. Love is not the entire sum of Christian teaching; in the books of Acts and 2 Peter, the words love and compassion are not even found. If you have studied over ten times about God's love, and have never really studied what the Bible is trying to teach us about God's wrath, you should diligently study this in God's word.

God is just: 2 Th 1:6; Dt32:4; Rom 3:5-6; Heb 6:10

God is impartial: 1 Peter 1:17; ~Jms 3:17.

There is no favoritism with Him: Rom 2:5-12; Col 3:25; Eph6:9.

Ezek 18: The son does not die for the sin of the father or vice versa: each man dies for his own sin. (i.e., not another's sin)

Rom 4:15; 5:13; Heb 9:7;Acts 17:30 Sin may be present, but God does not punish for what people did not willfully knowably do

Rom 1:18-20 shows that men are without excuse, BECAUSE they had knowledge of God and suppressed the truth.

Other verses: Num 14:18-24; 15:27-30; Dt 4:8+22:23-27; Jer 17:4; 19:5; 31:29-30; 32:35; Ezek 13:19;14:10,23;18; Jn 8:24; Rom 6:23; Jude 15; Rev 19:11;20:11-15

Sometimes it is easy to become more wrapped up in which of two sides one is on, than to ask what is God's truth. Both Calvinists and Arminians agree that nobody knows the truth as completely as believers will know it in heaven. As we diligently search the scriptures, we should be have great patience with others who do not see things our way, and listen carefully to the thought-out criticisms of other genuine believers, "for as iron sharpens iron, so one man sharpens another." We should be open to correction and change, yet stand fast, without compromise, on the word God actually says. "Do not go beyond what is written", and "do not add to God's word." Opinions are fine to have, but be patient when people say you are confusing man's opinions and theology with God's word, because, sometimes, they might be correct.

Ante-Nicene Fathers vols. 1-10 Hendrickson Pub. 1994.

Dillenberger, John. Martin Luther. Selections fro His Writings. Doubleday 1961.

Durant, Will The Reformation MJF Books 1957. Durant was a famous historian. This book came from his lectures in a Presbyterian church

Elwell, Walter A. (ed.) The Concise Evangelical Dictionary of Theology Baker Book House 1991.

Basinger, David and Randall Basinger editors. Predestination & Free Will : Four Views of Divine Sovereignty & Human Freedom by Feinberg, John. Norman Geisler, Bruce Reichenbach, Clark Pinnock. InterVarsity Press. 1986.

Luther, Martin The Bondage of the Will translated by Henry Cole. Baker Book House 1976.

Moo, Douglas. The Wycliffe Exegetical Commentary Romans 1-8. Moody Press 1991.

Pinson, J. Matthew, general ed. Four Views on Eternal Security. Zondervan 2002.

Proceedings of the Fourth Annual Conference on Chaos in Manufacturing. Santa Fe New Mexico, April 9-12, 1996.

Schaff, Philip and David Schaff The Creeds of Christendom Volume III The Evangelical Protestant Creeds. 1993 (from 1931 ed) Baker Books.

Simon, Marilyn K., Mountains are Not Triangles: Chaos, Fractals, Dynamical systems and Complexity. Unpublished. 1994.

Boettner, Loraine. The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company 1932.

Calvin, John. Commentaries on the Bible. translated by John King. Baker Books 1999.

Calvin, John Institutes of the Christian Religion translated by Henry Beveridge Wm. B. Eerdmans 1989.

Chantry, Walter. Imputation of Righteousness & Covenant Theology. Reformed Baptist Publications. (no date)

Daniel, Curt. The History and Theology of Calvinism. Ph.D. Dissertation Scholarly Reprints 1993.

Edwards, Jonathan. On Knowing Christ. Banner of Truth Trust. 1839, 1993.

Erickson, Millard J. Christian Theology Baker Book House 1985.

Gerstner, John H. A Primer on Dispensationalism. Copyright John H. Gerstner, 1982.

Gerstner, John H. A Primer on Free Will. Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company. 1982.

Gerstner, John H. Repent or Perish. Soli Dei Gloria Publications. 1990.

Gill, John The Cause of God and Truth Volume II.

Gill, John. Collected Writings. CD-ROM. AGES Software, Inc. 2000.

Hodge, Charles. Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans. William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company. Reprinted 1994.

Horton, Michael. Putting Amazing Back into Grace : Who Does What in Salvation? Baker Books. 1991, 1994

First London Confession of Faith : 1614 Edition, The. Backus Book Publishers. Reprinted 1981.

Packer, J.I. Evangelism & the Sovereignty of God. InterVarsity Press. 1961.

Payne, William. Sinners, Jesus Will Receive. The Effects of Total Depravity and Limited Atonement on Biblical Evangelism and Missions. Foreword by James Montgomery Boice. (no date)

Pink, A.W. The Sovereignty of God Baker Book House 1930.

Reisinger, Ernest C. and Thomas K. Ascol. Calvinism or Hyper-Calvinism? Insights from B.B. Warfield, John A. Broadis, B.H. Carroll, Charles H. Spurgeon. 1989.

Seaton, W.J. The Five Points of Calvinism. The Banner of Truth Trust. 1970-1990.

Spencer, Duane Edward TULIP : The Five Points of Calvinism in the Light of Scripture Baker Book House 1979.

Sproul, R.C. Chosen by God

Sproul, R.C. Faith Alone. The Evangelical Doctrine of Justification. Baker Books. 1995.

Sproul, R.C. Willing to Believe. The Controversy over Free Will. Baker Books 1997.

White, James. Drawn by the Father : A Study of John 6:35-45. Crowne Publications, Inc. 1991.

White, James R. The Potter's Freedom : A Defense of the Reformation and a Rebuttal of Norman Geisler's Chosen But Free. Calvary Press. 2000.

Forster, R.T. and V. Paul Marston God's Strategy in Human History Tyndale House Publishers, Inc. 1973.

Geisler, Norman and T. Howe When Critics Ask Victor 1989.

Geisler, Norman. Chosen But Free.

Lewis, C.S. The Great Divorce. Macmillan Publishing.

In this otherwise excellent book, C.S. Lewis suggests the false doctrine for people to go to hell, and afterwards to have a sincere change of heart and go to heaven. Then, for them Hell will be only purgatory.

For more info please contact Christian Debater™ P.O. Box 144441 Austin, TX 78714 www.BibleQuery.org