Welcome to Gaia! :: View User's Journal | Gaia Journals

by Josh Adkins

Table of Contents:

- Introduction
- What is Sovereignty?
- "It Is Also Written"
- Why It Matters
- Point-by-Point Scriptural Refutations
- Conclusion

Introduction:

This note contains a detailed description and Scripturally-based refutation of what is referred to as Calvinism or "Reformed theology." To cover every facet of this subject would take a sizable book (which I am working on), but for the sake of Facebook, I've created a booklet-sized note that hopefully packs a precise punch. As with any belief system, there is a spectrum or level of commitment to various aspects found within. Most "reformists" refer to those on the extreme end of their spectrum as "hyper-Calvinists." It should be noted this description and refutation is intended to address the median of that spectrum, though portions will certainly apply to those on the "hyper" ends of the doctrines as well.

Before addressing the specific issues at hand, it is important to recognize that in cases of doctrinal dispute, the truth is never found in "well, you have your scriptures and I have mine." The Scripture does not contradict itself. Rather, the truth of God's Word is found in it's harmony. If a belief system maximizes one set of Scriptures while ignoring or greatly minimizing others, that belief system is likely fallacious. Remember, the Bible contains 66 books filled with various literary forms and spans thousands of years of history. For this reason, it can actually be dangerous to focus too long on one particular book or passage. However, if we rightly divide the Word as a whole (by it's true author: Holy Spirit), we'll discover riches of harmonious revelation that only enhance God's intent and instruction toward us. Then we shall say, "these Scriptures work together to form a more complete picture of God's nature and will."

The fact the "God's sovereignty vs. man's responsibility" debate has raged for centuries puts no dent in my decision to add my voice to the mix. Many aspects of traditional Catholicism were clearly in opposition to the Scripture, yet they were widely accepted in Christianity for well over 1,000 years. Thank God, men like Martin Luther had the courage to return to the Scriptures concerning those issues, rather than blindly accepting man-made theologies. Likewise, the amount of time and/or church history present in this matter should not dissuade us from returning to the Scriptures for confirmation of truths. In the end, all that matters is God's interpretation of His Word, not man's opinion; regardless of how prolific the author.

What is Sovereignty?:

God is sovereign. What does that actually mean in the Scriptural framework? In all of my years of reading the Bible, I neither leaped for joy nor flinched in anguish at the mention of God's sovereignty. Among my "reformed" friends, however, I noticed the word seemed to be given extraordinary place among other adjectives describing our Creator. This confused me, as I knew in my reading of the Scripture the word did not seem to be nearly as emphasized as these friends made it out to be. In fact, God refers to Himself as being faithful, more often than sovereign.

See, the word sovereign is literally defined as: "a supreme ruler or authority; possessing ultimate power." The Calvinists, however, take the word to mean, "yielding ultimate power." There is a vast difference between the two! In other words, the phrase "God is sovereign" is not a sweeping statement made by God to declare He forces His hand in every situation. No, Scripturally the phrase means God is the supreme ruler and capable of exercising control, but has delegated some of His authority to man. As it is written:

Psalm 115:16 - "The heavens are the heavens of the Lord, but the earth He has given to the sons of men."

In terms of biblical sovereignty, God is very much akin to the CEO of a large corporation. A CEO retains full ownership and management over the company and it's assets. However, when a CEO hires employees, he or she delegates some authority to them. This does not mean the employees exude more power than the CEO, but that at some level they've been given the right to make decisions which can affect the company. For example, if a cashier makes a mathematical error during the checkout process, the company loses money (including the CEO). So, is the CEO or employee the direct cause for loss? Obviously, the company is effected by the poor decision(s) of the employee. God's kingdom is very similar to this analogy. Though He is the supreme CEO of the universe, He has delegated some authority to man. Thus, the state of sin in the earth today. God is not directly responsible for sin, but it is a consequence of the freedom He gives to mankind.

As I previously eluded to, another important qualification of God's sovereignty is His faithfulness. When God makes a promise and all said conditions placed upon man are met, He cannot change his mind according to His sovereign power. I know the word cannot is causing some of you to break out in hives right now, but bear with me for a moment. Did you know the Scripture actually tells us that because of God's holiness, He cannot do some things? Lying is chief on this list:

1 Samuel 15:29 - "Also the Glory of Israel will not lie or change His mind; for He is not a man that He should change His mind."

The word covenant means "legally binding contract," and the Lord offers over 3,000 promises in reference to that contract. Many are directly spoken from Jesus' own lips, while others apply to the church of Christ by way of God grafting the Gentiles into Abraham's covenant (Romans 11, Galatians 3). God intends for these promises to be received, but if believers make poor decisions or do not meet His overriding new covenant condition - faith - those promises can go unfulfilled. This is why in Mark 6:5 the Scripture reads, "and He could not do many miracles there for their lack of faith..." Jesus repeatedly declared man's responsibility present in many areas in saying, "...according to your faith shall it be done to you" (Matt 9:23); and also "...and whatever is not from faith is sin" (Rom 14:23).

In this way, the Scripture speaks of two wills of God: perfect and permissive. Our heavenly Father desires us to live in His good, pleasing, and perfect will, but we often fall short of that in either ignorance or willful unbelief.

Romans 12:2 - "And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, so that you may prove what the will of God is, that which is good and acceptable and perfect."

This passage is a command to believers to renew our minds upon God's Word, rather than adhere to the naturally occurring ways of the world. In other words, if we do not know and apply God's Word, we will fall short of God's perfect will and live subject to the world's nature. A terrific example of this is revealed in Jesus' reply to the Pharisees regarding divorce.

Matthew 19:7-8 "They said to Him, 'Why then did Moses command to give her a certificate of divorce and send her away?' Jesus said to them, “Because of your hardness of heart Moses permitted you to divorce your wives; but from the beginning it has not been this way."

God's perfect will is never divorce. However, because of their hardness and in order to prevent further consequence, God provided a way for them to live in His less-than-perfect, permissive will through the command to give legal notice of permanent separation. This concept is common throughout the Scripture and is important in understanding man's responsibility in receiving forgiveness of sins, healing, and many others promises.

On the contrary, Calvinists often use the phrase, "God is sovereign," to imply He reserves the right to change His mind or alter such promises. Sometimes, they will even claim this sovereignty nullifies the promise altogether. This is the root of "if it be Your will" prayer. So ingrained is the idea of sovereignty in "reformed" thinking, that it's often believed God thinks a man more humble to claim they are unworthy to stand on these unwavering promises despite present circumstances. Though their intentions are good, they do not realize this type of thinking is a process of unbelief, and thereby nullifies the reception of God's intervention in their situation. As it is written:

James 1:6-8 "But he must ask in faith without any doubting, for the one who doubts is like the surf of the sea, driven and tossed by the wind. For that man ought not to expect that he will receive anything from the Lord, being a double-minded man, unstable in all his ways."

So, is God all powerful? Absolutely. Does that mean He always exercises that power in superseding man's will? Absolutely not. The Scripture is clear that God delegates some authority and power to man. This is evident from the garden of Eden (when God delegated some dominion and authority to Adam) all the way through the book of Revelation (where Jesus speaks to the churches). Calvinists often charge those refuting their beliefs with denying God's sovereignty. However, this is far from accurate as most are not denying God's definition of the term, but theirs! Biblical sovereignty includes qualifications set forth by God Himself. True humility is in accepting and acting on what God actually says, rather than merely reciting popular phrases.

"It is Also Written":

It is important to recognize particular Scriptures are very specific to a topic, while others are more vague - addressing a broader issue or context. The less specific is often interpreted in light of the more specific, not the other way around. Jesus utilized the principles of Scriptural harmony & targeting the specific during his temptation from the devil in the wilderness. In an attempt to convince Jesus to throw himself from a high ledge, Satan quoted a passage from Psalm 91. The Scripture itself wasn't satanic in origin. On the contrary, the passage actually contained legitimate promises of angelic protection for those who closely abide in God! However, Jesus properly discerned Satan's vague, sweeping usage of the promise. Christ conquered with, "it is also written," because the command to not deliberately tempt God (Deut 6:16) superseded the enemy's less-than-specific use of Psalm 91.

We to, by the Spirit, must rightly divide God's Word. The Scripture warns in the last days there will be doctrines of demons introduced into the body of Christ which will distort truths of Scripture. Some men will teach doctrines which downplay God's Word, while others will misuse it. They will do this by maximizing particular passages often pulled out of context, while ignoring or minimizing others which specifically contradict their conclusions.

In regards to Calvinism, many have maximized and improperly defined Scriptures speaking of God's sovereignty over nations while having blatantly ignored very specific declarations in regards to individual salvation found elsewhere. To these people we must be ready to respond as Christ: "it is also written." Partial truths are not whole truths. Again, the Scripture never contradicts itself.

Matthew 22:29 "But Jesus answered and said to them, “You are mistaken, not understanding the Scriptures nor the power of God."

Why it Matters:

In recent years, there has been a resurgence of Calvinism in the church, especially among younger believers. Twenty and thirty-somethings are particularly filled with zeal in attempting to learn God's ways. The problem is, love for knowledge is often married to an unrealized pride and search for identity. Intellectuals are often particularly attractive to younger crowds because they believe them to be terrific role models; articulaters of truth. "Reformed theology" fits this mold nicely. It's wrapped in a beautiful package of fine-sounding arguments, foreign-to-most-vocabulary, and attitudes toward God that sound incredibly honorable at the surface, but in reality are void of Scriptural truth. Also of note is an excessive focus on church historians and their views of theology. Obviously, there is nothing wrong with listening to theologians, but when more heed is given to their opinions than the original text itself, a slippery slope of error ensues.

A few weeks ago I received a letter from a Facebook friend in which he expressed great unrest in his soul concerning God's sovereignty vs. man's responsibility. He claimed to see both sides of the argument at work in the Scripture, and was therefore having difficulty reconciling his response to Christ in his daily life. A portion of his letter reads:

"Basically, this isn't just me wanting to increase my intellectual knowledge. It's a concern about knowing who God is. I think that most of my problems with depression are stemming from not knowing what the Bible says about that stuff [Calvinism] and issues relating to how it applies to daily life and obedience...it's been causing me so much grief. This was the very issue that kicked off this depressive state for me last fall."

The above excerpt is exactly why this subject must be addressed in the church. The implications of whichever road a believer takes in this matter are practical and far reaching! The email's author is an honest thinker and desires to live his life in Jesus to the fullest, but his honesty in attempting to practically reconcile and apply Calvinism's doctrines is admittedly throwing him into a confused state. He needs the truth of God's Word to set him free.

Now, bear in mind, most of the subscribers to this belief system are well intended. Many are humble in their general attitude towards the Lord. However, in an honest searching of the entirety of the Scripture, I believe one will discover "reformed theology" is heavily flawed. The precedents set forth become a lens through which a believer views their entire relationship with Christ. Obviously, I applaud the Calvinist's focus on grace; teaching we're to live through the power of God rather than the law. However, as I will address in sections below, it's their sweeping definition of grace and it's supposed nullification of man's God-given responsibility that brings much of the Scripture into evident contradiction. In other words, this issue matters because it greatly effects the way in which one approaches and responds to God and His Word.

Most paralyzing is the effect Calvinism has on a believer's prayer life. Jesus taught on numerous occasions to approach God in faith; and not just a general faith, but faith that has full assurance that what is prayed for will be received - if what is being requested is a part of the believer's revealed inheritance in Christ. A "reformed" person will shrink back from faith in many of God's promises believing that whatever circumstance comes their way is His will towards them. In other words, Satan's work is often attributed to God's work. Because of this, prayer often becomes an unrealized religious exercise; God's name is mentioned, but specifics within the prayer are generalized. Beyond the cloak of vocabulary, the believer is theologically bound by the mysterious, mostly unrevealed will of God and therefore cannot exercise the, "effectual, fervent prayers that availeth much."

Speaking of the importance of unwavering faith in prayer, let's get personal for a moment. I should not have been born. In 1971, my mother gave birth to my older brother, Andy. However, a medical problem quickly became evident and within a few hours, Andy had passed away. After a little research, the doctors discovered the problem and informed my parents that they could not have anymore children because their blood types had a degenerative incompatibility. They explained that if they were to ever get pregnant again, the child would likely die before birth, or at best be born severely deformed and mentally handicapped. Though devastated by the loss, my parents continued on with their life and ministry and a decade later, my mom discovered she was pregnant with me. After an initial visit to the hospital, the doctors gave my family no hope for my survival.

This time, however, my parents bravely waged a battle of faith by praying and confessing God's Word over me. The overriding Scripture they leaned upon was, 'He shall live and not die and declare the works of the Lord' (Psalm 118:17). In the 7th month of my mother's pregnancy, the previously looming condition instantly disappeared. The doctors had declared it a medical impossibility, yet the documentation revealed it as fact. My parent's had waged war on the enemy by choosing to believe God's word rather than the doctors' negative diagnoses, and God had miraculously healed me!

Due to the fact that I was to be my mother's fourth child, she also asked the Lord to not let me exceed 8 lbs at birth. The day I was born, March 1, 1982, I was not only healthy, but I came out weighing exactly 8.00 lbs! God honors faith and is precise in His answers. The point is, had my parents been "reformed" believers, I most likely would not be typing this note. I would have probably died in my mother's womb, as my brother before me - perishing for my parent's lack of knowledge in the Word and absolute assurance of God's promises of healing to those who'll believe.

Mark 11:23-24 "Truly I say to you, whoever says to this mountain, ‘Be taken up and cast into the sea,’ and does not doubt in his heart, but believes that what he says is going to happen, it will be granted him. Therefore I say to you, all things for which you pray and ask, believe that you have received them, and they will be granted you."

In order to believe as Jesus commanded in this area, one must know without a doubt he or she will receive what is being praying for. Instead, "reformed" petitions often include the underlying phrase "if it be Your will." While that sounds noble on the surface, in actuality it violates Jesus' teachings, often resulting in no response from heaven. It's like putting watery gasoline in an engine - it just doesn't power the car.

Thank God, my parents did not pray with unassurance - accepting my disease as "God's will to teach them humility." Instead, they recognized the true, biblically stated source of the attack. As it is written: "how God anointed Him [Jesus] with the Holy Spirit and with power, and He went about doing good and healing all who were oppressed by the devil, for God was with Him" (Acts 10:3 cool . And again, "The thief [Satan] comes to steal, kill, and destroy, but I [Jesus] have come that you may have life, and that more abundantly" (John 10:10).

Faith in prayer begins where the will of God is known. Apart from this revealed will, people perish in unbelief and unassurance. As it is also written: "And because of their unbelief, he couldn't do any miracles among them except to place his hands on a few sick people and heal them" (Mark 6:5). And again, "then He touched their eyes, saying, "It shall be done to you according to your faith" (Matt 9:29).

In addition to prayer, there are other negative effects of Calvinism. I personally know a man who believes God has likely predestined him for hell and therefore sees little merit in giving heed to the cross of Jesus and His word. I'll be honest, this infuriates me! People are literally perishing because they're being told by so-called representatives of Jesus Christ that God has chosen many for destruction before the foundation of the world. How this must grieve the heart of God "who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth" (1 Tim 2:4).

I love my "reformed" friends, but make no apologies in openly displaying both the Scriptural inconsistencies of Calvinism and it's harm to the believer's walk with Christ. I know some Christianss have so embraced the tenants of this belief system they'd rather die than depart from them. They boldly preach these doctrines as absolute truth declaring, "This is the way God works!" Yet, when confronted with blatant Scriptural contradictions, many suddenly revert to, "Well, it's all a mystery! How dare you claim to know the ways of God?" To these people I ask: Which is it? Do you believe what you're teaching to be truth, or is it all a "mystery?" For the one claiming mystery, it is inconsistent to pronounce the tenants of Calvinism as absolute in the first place.

Aside from those already embracing "reformed theology," there are also thousands of listeners out there like the Bereans (Acts 17:11); people willing to investigate whether claims of preachers and teachers hold true to God's Word. The very lives of these people are at stake, and that's why it matters.

Point-by-Point Scriptural Refutations:

TULIP is an acronym describing the 5 general tenants of the Calvinist belief system - namely "doctrines of grace" as they are referred to by theologians as far back as Augustine and as present day as John Piper, John MacArthur, R.C. Sproul, Mark Driscoll, among others. In this section, I will display each Calvinist tenant and exposition (in their own language), followed by my Scriptural refutation for each belief:

Total Depravity - Sin has affected all parts of man. The heart, emotions, will, mind, and body are all affected by sin. We are completely sinful. We are not as sinful as we could be, but we are completely affected by sin. The doctrine of Total Depravity is derived from scriptures that reveal human character: Man’s heart is evil (Mark 7:21-23) and sick (Jer. 17:9). Man is a slave of sin (Rom. 6:20). He does not seek for God (Rom. 3:10-12). He cannot understand spiritual things (1 Cor. 2:14). He is at enmity with God (Eph. 2:15). And, is by nature a child of wrath (Eph. 2:3). The Calvinist asks the question, "In light of the scriptures that declare man’s true nature as being utterly lost and incapable, how is it possible for anyone to choose or desire God?" The answer is, "He cannot. Therefore God must predestine."

Calvinism also maintains that because of our fallen nature we are born again not by our own will but God’s will (John 1:12-13); God grants that we believe (Phil. 1:29); faith is the work of God (John 6:28-29); God appoints people to believe (Acts 13:4 cool ; and God predestines (Eph. 1:1-11; Rom. 8:29; 9:9-23).

Refutation: Scripture teaches this is only partially true. At first glance, we see a decent list of Scripture cited above in support of total depravity. However, remember the aforementioned principles of interpreting Scripture I presented: specific to the topic references vs. less specific and "it is also written." In the cited passages of Mark 7:21-23, Jeremiah 17:9, and Romans 6:20, the disparity of man's sin condition is certainly addressed, but these passages in no way encompass the totality of the Scripture's picture of sin and the human condition. There are actually a plethora of other Scriptures which bring into question the sweeping doctrine of "total depravity." In ignoring or causally skimming these other texts, Calvinists often commit the theological offense of maximizing Scripture and over-generalization.

For example, "reformists" rely heavily on the Scripture "no one seeks God, no not one" as stated in Romans 3:11-12, to make their argument for "total depravity." But, there's a big problem with this: Thousands of pages of Scripture clearly show numerous examples of OT men encouraged to choose righteousness in their so-called "totally depraved" state. See, Paul is quoting various OT Scriptures when he writes Romans 3:10-18. He’s not just making a statement of his own, and that matters. He’s referencing these passages to prove a point - and that point is far from absolutely no one can pursue God. One of the places he quotes is Psalm 14, where the Psalmist tells us, “They are all gone aside; they became filthy together. None does good, no, not one” (vs. 3). Yet that very same Psalm also tells us, “God is in the generation of the righteous.” I thought there were no righteous!? In fact, the same prophet who partially declared "no one seeks God," later commanded, "Seek the Lord while He may be found."

The Old Testament is filled with men who freely sought and served the Lord. While it is true these men of renown (Abel, Abraham, Job, Samuel, David, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel, to name a few) were not eternally saved by works or their own righteousness, Romans 4 and Hebrews 11 are clear their acts of obedience displayed their faith in God - which placed them in a position to receive the future grace of the Lord Jesus' saving blood. So, while they were "depraved" in their sin nature, they were certainly not incapable of pursuing righteousness.

Thus, the Deuteronomy admonishment of God towards the children of Israel, "Today, I set before you life and death; choose life..." If man is unable to do right apart from Christ, how could God ask the Israelites to choose it?? Another example is God saying to Cain, "If you do right, will you not be accepted? Sin is crouching at your door and desires to overtake you, but you must master it" (Gen 4:7). How can Cain possibly do right if he's totally depraved? Why would God command Cain to master sin if he is incapable of mastering sin?

In the New Testament, the story of Cornelius also places a particularly well-sized thorn in the side of "total depravity." The Scripture reads:

"Now there was a man at Caesarea named Cornelius, a centurion of what was called the Italian cohort, a devout man and one who feared God with all his household, and gave many alms to the Jewish people and prayed to God continually. About the ninth hour of the day he clearly saw in a vision an angel of God who had just come in and said to him, “Cornelius!” And fixing his gaze on him and being much alarmed, he said, “What is it, Lord?” And he said to him, “Your prayers and alms have ascended as a memorial before God. Now dispatch some men to Joppa and send for a man named Simon, who is also called Peter; he is staying with a tanner named Simon, whose house is by the sea.” (Acts 10:1-6)

Cornelius was an unsaved, unregenerate Roman centurion. He hadn't even heard the gospel, much less been drawn by the Spirit to it. According to "reformed" doctrine this man is totally depraved, incapable of seeking God or doing what is right in His eyes. Yet, we see the exact opposite present in this story. Instead of a man incapable of seeking God, it is noted he was "a devout man and one who feared God with all of his household." In addition, the angel made specific note that this man's "prayers and alms have ascended as a memorial before God!" Talk about flying directly in the face of the first tenant of "reformed theology." God took note of a sinner because of his good works! Now, I didn't say he was saved by his works; but that God took note, sending him an angel who instructed him to send for Peter in order that he might hear the gospel and be saved. In addition to presenting the gospel to Cornelius and his household, Peter makes an astounding declaration that, again, flies in the face of so-called "total depravity."

"Opening his mouth, Peter said: 'I most certainly understand now that God is not one to show partiality, but in every nation the man who fears Him and does what is right is welcome to Him.'" (Acts 10:34-35)

Again, Peter is speaking of an unregenerate sinner in Cornelius; a man yet to receive Christ! Keep in mind, this is a historical account, not a doctrine-laden epistle possibly open to misinterpretation. In the difference of interpretive opinion, it is often advisable to look at the historicity within Scripture. For any honest reader, Cornelius' example alone should resolve the "total depravity" debate.

Christ's precious blood is the necessary antidote for our sin-state; the fulfillment of righteousness required to save us from our depravity. However, to say we are totally incapable of humbling our heart and seeking God in any manner is of absolute Scriptural error. Hundreds of known biblical characters stood before God in humility and reverence, seeking His approval before Christ. The conclusion is that though a pre-Christ man cannot do perfectly right and is ultimately lost without Jesus' precious blood, that man can seek Him and choose to walk towards righteousness in many ways apart from that blood. Man cannot ultimately fulfill righteousness, be saved by works, etc., but he is certainly capable of taking steps in the direction of salvation. That's not theory; that's thousands of years of Biblical history.
____________________________

Unconditional Election - God does not base His election on anything He sees in the individual. He chooses the elect according to the kind intention of His will (Eph. 1:4-8; Rom. 9:11) without any consideration of merit within the individual. Nor does God look into the future to see who would pick Him. Also, as some are elected into salvation, others are not (Rom. 9:15, 21).

Refutation: Scripture does not teach this in regards to salvation of the soul. When the Scripture was originally written there were neither chapter nor verse numbers present. These were handwritten letters sent to particular groups of people, mainly those within the churches of the body of Christ. Within each letter, the author obviously addresses particular subjects, moving in and out of sections referring to each topic.

Paul often uses several techniques in his declaring of these topics, one of which could be referred to as rhetroical argument. In other words, he makes a statement, anticipates a question or problem, answers the question himself, then repeats the process until often concluding with a "therefore..." The book of Romans is laden with such technique and it's important to recognize that these arguments span several chapters, rather than beginning and ending with what is pegged as one chapter or section. One such multi-chapter argument Paul makes is in addressing God's sovereign choosing of the nation of Israel in Romans 9 - 11.

In writing to primarily Gentile believers in Rome, Paul takes several pages to explain how God selected the lineage of the Jewish people and why they should not be taken for granted by Gentiles, but highly honored as the vine into which the branches (Gentile believers) were grafted in. So, with that in mind, let's look at Romans 9:

Romans 9:1-5 "I am telling the truth in Christ, I am not lying, my conscience testifies with me in the Holy Spirit, that I have great sorrow and unceasing grief in my heart. For I could wish that I myself were accursed, separated from Christ for the sake of my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh, who are Israelites, to whom belongs the adoption as sons, and the glory and the covenants and the giving of the Law and the temple service and the promises, whose are the fathers, and from whom is the Christ according to the flesh, who is over all, God blessed forever. Amen."

In the preceding verses, Paul is merely beginning his lengthy argument for validating God's sovereign formation of the Jewish nation and implications for Gentile people groups. It's important to recognize this is about Israel. Take note, there is absolutely no mention of the following words in Romans 9: Jesus, salvation, cross, blood, repentance or forgiveness. This matters as I will show in comparing and contrasting the Calvinist interpretation of these passages to the specific-to-the-topic-of-God's-will-for-men-to-be-saved Scriptures found elsewhere in a moment.

Romans 9:6-12 - "But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For they are not all Israel who are descended from Israel; nor are they all children because they are Abraham’s descendants, but: “through Issac your descendants will named." That is, it is not the children of the flesh who are children of God, but the children of the promise are regarded as descendants. For this is the word of promise: “At this time, I will come and Sarah will have a son.” And not only this, but there was Rebekah also, when she had conceived twins by one man, our father Isaac; for though the twins were not yet born and had not done anything good or bad, so that God’s purpose according to His choice would stand, not because of works but because of Him who calls, it was said to her, “the older will serve the younger.” Just as it is written, “Jacob I loved, and Esau I hated.”

This is where Calvinists begin to misinterpret the topic at hand. They believe, "before either [twin] had done anything good or bad...not because of works but because of Him who calls" is God's sweeping will for all man kind in regards to Christ's salvation. But, this is not the case at all. Abraham, Sarah, Rebekah, Jacob and Esau are all forefathers (and mothers) of Israel. Paul is not suddenly jumping topics to matters of individual salvation here. On the contrary, the context is as it was in verses 1-5; this is about God's sovereign choosing of the lineage through which the nation of Israel would arise.

If one simply reads the original story Paul references in speaking of "Jacob I loved, and Esau I hated," they will see that God did not "hate" Esau as it's understood in our modern vernacular. In fact, He blessed Esau and made him into a great nation! That's not exactly "hatred" on an individual basis. No, the Scripture is speaking allegorically here in referencing God's sovereign choosing of Jacob over Esau to form the lineage of Israel. Furthermore, "Esau I hated" was noted as being blessed by God. He was merely "hated" and rejected in regard to being chosen for a critical role in God’s plan of redemption through the lineage of Israel.

Romans 9:14-24 "What shall we say then? There is no injustice with God, is there? May it never be! For He says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.” So then it does not depend on the man who wills or the man who runs, but on God who has mercy. For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, "For this very purpose I raised you up, to demonstrate my power in you, that my name might be proclaimed throughout the entire earth." So then He has mercy on whom He desires, and He hardens whom He desires. You will say to me then, “Why does He still find fault? For who resists His will?” On the contrary, who are you, O man, who answers back to God? The thing molded will not say to the molder, “Why did you make me like this,” will it? Or does not the potter have a right over the clay, to make from the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for common use? What if God, although willing to demonstrate His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction? And He did so to make known the riches of His glory upon vessels of mercy, which He prepared beforehand for glory, even us, whom He also called, not from among Jews only, but also from among Gentiles."

The preceding passage is the cornerstone of "reformed" doctrine. The Calvinists often harp on these ten verses and will repeatedly return to them in an attempt to persuade you. However, it should be readily evident by now that Paul is smack dab in the middle of a contextual discussion on God's sovereign choosing of the lineage of the nation of Israel, not the atonement of Christ for individual salvation. Therefore, I neither deny nor ignore these passages in the least, but readily embrace them in context. Paul is saying God is not unjust in retaining complete control in choosing the lineage of the Jews, through which salvation would eventually come to the Gentiles. He anticipates the Gentile response and questioning of this by explaining God raises up some leaders to show his power in opposition to His ways. He knows whose heart is willfully proud, and therefore furthers that hardness in order to serve a greater purpose in regards to nation building.

Romans 9:30-32 "What shall we say then? That Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, attained righteousness, even the righteousness which is by faith; but Israel, pursuing a law of righteousness, did not arrive at that law. Why? Because they did not pursue it by faith, but as though it were by works. They stumbled over the stumbling stone."

Will every individual Gentile obtain salvation? No. Did every individual Israelite stumble over the Christ? No. Paul is talking about people groups, not individuals in regards to predestination of their soul. In these verses, God also makes a vital delineation between faith and works. Faith is not a work of the law, but it is a determining factor in man receiving God's promise. God's "vessels of mercy" among Jews and Gentiles are the general result of His sovereign dealings with Israel dating back to Pharaoh - not the antonym for individuals chosen for eternal wrath according to the Calvinist model of predestination. Besides, when was the last time God demonstrated His wrath in an individual to the degree of Pharaoh? I can name one - Jesus.

Another popular "reformed" reference is Ephesians chapter 1, where the "elect" are mentioned. However, in understanding the above refutation of the "reformed" view of Romans 9, their sweeping definition of the "elect" is clearly skewed. In fact, apart from Romans 9, their argument for unconditional election crumbles practically everywhere else in the Scripture. The truth is, the "elect" is the church of Jesus Christ, brought "out of darkness and into His marvelous light" by the foreknowledge of God - not forecoercion. Just because God knows something beforehand doesn't mean He causes it. Now, if this was the only reference to individual salvation and the elect in the Scripture, then one might argue that point. However, as I've repeatedly stated and will continue to, "it is also written" that:

"God does not will that any should perish, but that all come to the knowledge of the truth" (2 Peter 3:9) and "He is the Savior of all men, but especially those who believe" (1 Tim 4:10).

These Scriptures are not vague references to an "elect," but precise to the will of God for the salvation of all mankind. Again, God does not force His perfect will upon His creation in these issues. The elect are merely those God foreknew would humble their hearts to His call and thereby receive His free gift of grace. In this way, they are chosen.

Yet another passage Calvinists rely upon is John 6:37, 43-45 which says:

"Jesus answered and said to them, “All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will certainly not cast out." vs. 43-45 "Do not grumble among yourselves. No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up on the last day. It is written in the prophets, ‘and they shall all be taught of God.’ Everyone who has heard and learned from the Father, comes to Me."

Notice, Jesus did not say the Father only draws some people and rejects others based on His sovereign choosing before the creation of the world. The Calvinists make that leap, but Jesus didn't. Instead, Jesus simply stated they are unwilling to come to Him because the Father was not drawing them. When the Father draws and how often is never defined here. Now, once again, if this passage of Scripture were the only we had in the entire Bible, I might lean towards the "reformed" view. However, "it is also written," again comes into play in the citing of numerous Scriptures declaring God's attitude towards the salvation of all men, and man's attitude of heart before Him including:

James 4:6/1 Peter 5:5/Prov 3:34 - "God opposes the proud, but gives grace to the humble."

Now, if they had been incapable of believing according to the Father's will since the creation of the world (as the Calvinists state), why then would Jesus judge the Pharisees' attitudes? As was the case even before Christ, "God has given each man a measure of faith," and all have the capacity to hear His voice if they'll exercise even the slightest of humility towards the Creator. The Pharisees, however, were filled with pride and therefore unbelief. This is the true reason they could not hear the the call of God; the reason the Father did not open their hearts to the light of the gospel. As it is also written:

2 Corinthians 4:4 - "...the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelieving so that they might not see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God."

God certainly draws men, as repeatedly stated, but His ultimate desire is to draw them all. It is the pride of man that gives the enemy power to blind. The underlying pride of the Pharisees in opposition to God's desire and will is further proved in the passage where Jesus weeps over Jerusalem. It reads:

Luke 13:34 - "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and stones those sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, just as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you were not willing!"

Who was unwilling? God? Nope. Jesus was clear and this historical example aligns perfectly with 2 Peter 3:9, 1 Tim 2:4, 1 Tim 4:10 and the like in declaring God is willing, but we are often not. So, the question to the Calvinist is: If God has already decided/elected whom He wants to be saved, apart from any decision of man whatsoever, then why does Jesus weep over people who will not receive Him? Furthermore, why does He charge them with unwillingness if they have no control over God's will in the matter in the first place?

In light of these passages, the answer to the question of "unconditional election" should be clear. The choices for the reader are these: If "reformed" believers are correct in their view of Romans 9, then the specific-to-the-topic verses in regards to Jesus desiring no man perish, being the Savior of all men, whosoever will, etc. make absolutely no sense. In such a case, the two declarations of God are in blatant contradiction with one another. However, if the contextual Romans 9 interpretation I've presented is correct (in regards to the nation of Israel as a whole), then the specific-to-the-topic verses of individual salvation also written harmonize beautifully. I believe anyone who gives this subject a humble and honest viewing will confidently land on the side of the latter interpretation.
____________________________

Limited Atonement - Jesus died only for the elect. Though Jesus’ sacrifice was sufficient for all, it was not efficacious for all. Jesus only bore the sins of the elect. Support for this position is drawn from such scriptures as Matt. 26:28 where Jesus died for ‘many'; John 10:11, 15 which say that Jesus died for the sheep (not the goats, per Matt. 25:32-33); John 17:9 where Jesus in prayer interceded for the ones given Him, not those of the entire world; Acts 20:28 and Eph. 5:25-27 which state that the church was purchased by Christ, not all people; and Isaiah 53:12 which is a prophecy of Jesus’ crucifixion where he would bore the sins of many (not all).

Refutation: Scripture does not teach this. In fact, this may be the most insulting teaching to our Lord Jesus of the entire lot! Christ suffered an unimaginable death for all of His creation. No matter how many ways you try to slice it, tweak it, or "Greek it," the Scripture blatantly and precisely states Christ died for all men, every man, and whosoever will. There is no caveat to these specific statements in the Word of God.

2 Peter 3:9 - "But do not let this one fact escape your notice, beloved, that with the Lord one day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years like one day. The Lord is not slow about His promise, as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing for any to perish but for all to come to repentance."

First, it is important to recognize that in verses 1-8, Peter addresses those in the world who would mock the coming of the Lord. He called them men of whom the "truth has escaped their notice." He then asks the reader to take special notice of the fact God is not slow concerning His second coming, but is patient with all men, not wishing (or 'willing') that any should perish, but that all would come to repentance.

A few years ago, I listened to a young, "reformed" pastor make the argument that because the first verses of Peter were addressed to the church, in saying all men Peter could only be speaking of the "elect." However, this line of reasoning rules out any and all discussions of the world in every epistle written in the New Testament (as they are all addressed to the church). It is equivalent to one addressing a letter to John, speaking of Mike and Sally within that letter, and then claiming Mike and Sally were actually code for John. With respect to the pastor, that's silly. When the Scripture speaks of the church, it speaks of the church; when it speaks of the world, it speaks of the world; and when it speaks of all men, it means all men.

As it is also written, "For it is for this we labor and strive, because we have fixed our hope on the living God, who is the Savior of all men, especially of believers" (1 Timothy 4:10).

This passage alone should put an end to the atonement debate entirely. The Word explicitly states Christ is the Savior of all men, and especially believers. The "especially believers" tacked onto the end leaves option for only one other class of people within the "all men" category: non-believers! It's as if God placed this single verse in the Bible to end all atonement discussion once and for all.

Moreover, 1 Timothy 2:4 states, "who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth." Further declaration of the atonement's extension to "whosoever will" and "all men" can be precisely found in Romans 10:12, John 3:16, Rom 11:32, Tit 2:11, and 2 Cor 5:19. Once again, all of these verses specifically state Christ died for every single man or woman created. This is God's will: that every man or woman on the face of the earth receives the option to partake of His free gift. Judgment belongs to those who willfully refuse that gift due to their own prideful rejection of His ways.

Calvinists will often cite passages from Romans 9 and Ephesians 1 to declare the atonement is limited and only for an "elect." In doing so, they present a sweeping doctrine based upon the maximization of less-than-specific verses while ignoring the aforementioned precise and specific-to-the-topic-of-salvation passages. The truth is, while Jesus' covenant is for an "elect," anyone may enter that covenant by becoming a Christian. It is open-ended. The atonement, therefore, is both limited and universal. It is both specific and general.
____________________________

Irresistible Grace - When God calls his elect into salvation, they cannot resist. God offers to all people the gospel message. This is called the external call. But to the elect, God extends an internal call and it cannot be resisted. This call is by the Holy Spirit who works in the hearts and minds of the elect to bring them to repentance and regeneration whereby they willingly and freely come to God. Some of the verses used in support of this teaching are Romans 9:16 where it says that "it is not of him who wills nor of him who runs, but of God who has mercy"; Philippians 2:12-13 where God is said to be the one working salvation in the individual; John 6:28-29 where the drawing is declared to be the work of God; Acts 13:48 where God appoints people to believe; and John 1:12-13 where being born again is not by man’s will, but by God’s.

Refutation: Scripture does not teach this. In an extensive address to the Sanhedrin, the disciple Stephen concludes his argument by saying the following:

Acts 7:51 - “You men who are stiff-necked and uncircumcised in heart and ears are always resisting the Holy Spirit; you are doing just as your fathers did."

Really, this Scripture alone should end the debate on this tenant. In declaring their resistance to the Holy Spirit (the very antonym of irresistible) Stephen was specifically speaking of their refusal to believe in Jesus as their Lord and Messiah. He further states, "you are doing just as your fathers did" speaking of the unbelief of many within the nation of Israel throughout their history.

The Old Testament is littered with figures specifically noted for either willfully obeying or disobeying the call of God. Men like Solomon started well, but finished poorly - choosing to resist the God they once so enthusiastically embraced. As the Father declared to Israel:

Deuteronomy 30:19 - ""I call heaven and earth to witness against you today, that I have set before you life and death, the blessing and the curse. So choose life in order that you may live, you and your descendants."

Free will is probably a poor term for this discussion because many take it to mean we do something despite God's ability. But, the Scripture is clear that accepting or receiving His gift is a God-given decision of man. He didn't have to give us this ability, but He chose to - in His sovereignty I might add. Jesus paid a great price that we might freely receive His gift. His grace is never forced or "irresistible." Calvinists twist definitions and contexts to make this claim. The very definition of love demands choice. As I will address in the refutation of the final "reformed" tenant, God allows room for us to willfully reject Him by living in a continually unrepentant state and/or boldly walking away from his call of salvation and Lordship. Without the ability to resist the Lord, our "love" would be no love at all. In such a case, we'd be merely robots in a wind-up world.
____________________________

Perseverance of the Saints - You cannot lose your salvation. Because the Father has elected, the Son has redeemed, and the Holy Spirit has applied salvation, those thus saved are eternally secure. They are eternally secure in Christ. Some of the verses for this position are John 10:27-28 where Jesus said His sheep will never perish; John 6:47 where salvation is described as everlasting life; Romans 8:1 where it is said we have passed out of judgment; 1 Corinthians 10:13 where God promises to never let us be tempted beyond what we can handle; and Phil. 1:6 where God is the one being faithful to perfect us until the day of Jesus’ return.

Refutation: You guessed it...Scripture does not teach this either. Many would argue (despite no Scripture to support it) that a truly saved individual cannot depart from Christ. However, contrary to this often popular belief within the American church, the Bible repeatedly warns believers to stay the course, lest they fall away from Christ and be eternally lost. While it is true that Romans 8:38 states nothing can separate us from God's love in Christ Jesus, it is also specifically written (by nearly every New Testament writer including quotations from Jesus Himself) that in latter times many believers will depart or fall away from the faith (1 Tim 4:1, Matt 13:20-21, 24:10, Heb 6:4-6, 10:26-38, 2 Pet 2:18-22, Jude:1-19). To depart or fall away implies one is once a part of the thing he or she is departing or falling away from. In fact, many other passages are all extremely specific in describing once saved and sanctified people who've chosen to walk away from the Lord to whom they once belonged. Jesus even warns several of the Revelation churches to maintain an attitude of repentance lest he "come and remove their lampstands." In the same chapters, He also references "blotting out his name [one who does not overcome] from the book of life."

Hebrews 10:26-31, 37-38 states:

"For if we go on sinning willfully after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, but a terrifying expectation of judgment and the fury of a fire which will consume the adversaries of God. Anyone who has set aside the Law of Moses [God's people] dies without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses. How much severer punishment do you think he will deserve who has trampled under foot the Son of God, and has regarded as unclean the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and has insulted the Spirit of grace? For we know Him who said, “vengeance is mine, I will repay.” And again, “The Lord will judge His people.” It is a terrifying thing to fall into the hands of the living God." vs. 37-38 "For yet in a very little while, He who is coming will come, and will not delay. But My righteous one shall live by faith; and if he shrinks back, My soul has no pleasure in him."

The proof this verse is a stern warning to specifically believers is found in verses 26, 29 & 38. I have emboldened the portions of these verses which apply. Simply put, a person who has been sanctified [past tense] by the blood of the covenant cannot be an unbeliever (vs 29). The Scripture is clear that only after we are born again in Jesus, we pass from death to life and our spirit has thereby become sanctified. Now, first John is clear that we can be repeatedly washed in the blood if we confess our sins before Jesus. Jesus also spoke of forgiving a brother "70 times 7." So, there is no number of times we can mess up beyond repair, per se, but that is not to say God is pleased with sin - especially if it's repeated in an act of blatant disregard of the fear of the Lord.

The Scripture draws a clear distinction between those who sin and are truly repentant, and those who deliberately continuing in sin without an attitude of repentance. It is the latter that is so dangerous. This is precisely what both Peter and Paul warn against in saying, "Do not use your freedom in grace as a license to sin" (Gal 5:13, 1 Peter 2:16).

Another stern warning given to specifically believers in this regard is found in 2 Peter 2:20-22:

"For if, after they have escaped the defilements of the world by the knowledge of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they are again entangled in them and are overcome, the last state has become worse for them than the first. For it would be better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than having known it, to turn away from the holy commandment handed on to them. It has happened to them according to the true proverb, “A dog returns to its vomit" and, “A sow, after washing, returns to wallowing in the mire."

This verse could not be more precise in regards to the matter in question. The phrase "after they have escaped the defilements of the world" points to salvation, rather than mere mental ascent. Even the Calvinist will tell you that it is impossible to fully escape the defilements of the world apart from being born-again. Just in case there is any room for misunderstanding, Peter further states, "...they are again entangled in them and are overcome, the last state has become worse for them than the first. For it would have be better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, then having known it, to turn away from the holy commandment handed to them."

To be entangled again and overcome means you were once set free through the knowledge of the Lord Jesus Christ. It means you were once sanctified and born again (as Hebrews 10 states). Paul humbly acknowledges this of his own life in stating:

1 Corinthians 9:27 "...but I discipline my body and make it my slave, so that, after I have preached to others, I myself will not be disqualified."

Now, to refute this point, the Calvinists often quote the passage of Romans 8:38-39 which states the following:

"For I am convinced that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor things present, nor things to come, nor powers, nor height, nor depth, nor any other created thing, will be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord."

I gladly acknowledge this passage, but in light of the other Scriptures specific to falling away, a clear distinction is made between God's actions and our actions. It is true that God does not "lose" believers as if they can be snatched from his hand by Satan. On God's end of our salvation is a perfectly committed Father who declares, "I will never leave you nor forsake you." His love for us never wanes. So the question becomes, "can we leave God? " In lieu of the aforementioned, extremely specific-to-the-topic-of-falling-away verses (Heb 6:4-6, 10:26-38, 2 Peter 2:18-20, 1 Tim 4:1, Matt 20:13-14, etc.) the answer is a resounding "yes." To deny this in favor of the doctrine of "perseverance of the saints" or as it's commonly referred to, "once saved, always saved," is to blatantly ignore these passages.

It is important to note that one who simply continues to abide in Christ should have no fear of such apostasy. Even in sin, if one maintains an attitude of general repentance before the Lord (living in sensitivity to the conviction of the Spirit of God within), they will be empowered by the grace of the Lord Jesus to coast in the sanctifying work of the Spirit unto salvation apart from fleshly works. Moreover, the Scripture declares faith and the choice to walk in the Spirit are not works, but responsibilities given to man in order to receive grace which empowers us to overcome sin. As it is written:

Romans 8:12-14 "So then, brethren, we are under obligation, not to the flesh, to live according to the flesh— for if you are living according to the flesh, you must die; but if by the Spirit you are putting to death the deeds of the body, you will live. For all who are being led by the Spirit of God, these are [mature] sons of God.

Conclusion:

God's sovereignty and man's God-given responsibility are both clearly present in Scripture and work together in harmony according to His "sovereign" will. While it is true we are saved by grace through faith and not of our own works, it is also true that biblical grace does not fit the Calvinist's sweeping definition. Grace is God's unmerited power and favor towards those who freely place their faith in Christ. It is not only an expression of sin-pardon, but also the Spirit's power extended that we might overcome sin and walk according to His righteousness. Walking by His Spirit is a command, and therefore a choice, not an automatic destination for an elite breed of religious robots. The power source is solely God's grace, but the decision to walk in that grace remains with man.

Christ died once, for all man kind. He may know the future, but He is not willfully excluding any of His creation on the basis of that foreknowledge. Whether or not one receives His free gift is according to the attitude of one's heart. As it is written, "God opposes the proud, but gives grace to the humble" (James 4:6).

Though from God's perspective the full extent of the issue is certainly more thorough, the Scripturally revealed revelation of the marriage between God's sovereignty and man's responsibility can be summarized in saying this: "For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever would believe on Him should not perish, but have everlasting life." Humble thyself and God will choose thee!