We began our study of Calvin predestination last week by looking at T=Total Depravity and U=Unconditional Election. We found both doctrines false and unscriptural. This week we will finish the study by looking at L I and P, rounding out the famous "TULIP" doctrine. Here we go with the letter "L."
Limited Atonement
This is the teaching that our Lord
died only for the elect. How could any
Calvinist defend this idea, when there are too many Scriptures that indicate
that Christ died for all. The verses I will cover prove that God makes Christ’s
atonement available to everyone. All
people should have the potential of being right with God. God wants all to be saved (see I Tim. 2:3,4
for instance). All that is now left is
their positive choice. His love does not stop with a few lucky people,
arbitrarily (and capriciously) selected.
Here’s a good verse to start with, II Corinthians 5:15:
and He died for all, that those who live should live no longer for
themselves, but for Him who died for them and rose again.
Of course, the Calvinists’ response to the above
verse is, “all” doesn’t really mean “all.” They seem to have plenty of verses that show
that all doesn’t always mean all. But
what do they say to this verse—I Timothy 4:10:
For to this end we both labor and suffer
reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Savior of all men,
especially of those who believe.
Now if you know anything about English grammar,
you can see how this word “especially” thrown in, also proves that Jesus died
for the unsaved as well.
Another pair of comparison verses will prove it
again, Romans 5:12, 18:
Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world,
and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because
all sinned—18 Therefore,
as through one man’s offense judgment
came to all men, resulting in condemnation, even so
through one Man’s righteous act the free gift came to all men, resulting in
justification of life.
The verses are
saying, since by one man, Adam, sin and death entered and infected all men, so
by one Man, Jesus, the free gift came (or was made available) to all men. There is no way to get around the logic
here. Theologians of every stripe all
believe that Adam affected everybody; no man has ever been sinless their entire
life since (except Jesus). So, likewise,
Jesus’ atonement was available to every single person so infected. If “all” means “all” in verse 12, it has to
mean “all” in verse 18. The same word
does not change meaning in an obviously comparative pair of verses. If you’re a Calvinist, the “all” in v. 12
means “all;” but the “all” in v. 18 does NOT mean all. But Paul was an
extremist on logic—he didn’t write that verse like Calvinists want.
The third nail in
the coffin of Limited Atonement is I John 2:1-2:
My little children, these things I write to you,
so that you may not sin. And if anyone sins, we have an Advocate with the
Father, Jesus Christ the righteous. 2 And He Himself is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours
only but also for the whole world.
Once again, the inescapable clause at the end,
“not for ours only” proves, without any doubt, that Christ also died for the
ultimately unsaved.
So, how could Calvinists believe what is so
easily proven to be a falsehood? Because
they love the security in their “gospel.”
The early followers of Calvin were the self-righteous civil ones, the
wealthy, the ones who felt they were the beneficiaries of God’s love. They loved feeling that their way to heaven
was sure. No religion gives more
security than Calvinism. Since that
possibility was laid out by Calvin, people have flocked to it, despite its
evident falsehood. A Scripture probably
applies here, II Timothy 4:3-4:
For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine, but
according to their own desires, because they
have itching ears, they
will heap up for themselves teachers; and they will turn their ears away from the truth, and be turned aside to fables.
Personally, this paper is a harsh indictment of the beliefs of
many of my Calvinistic friends, many of whom I believe are saved, despite
believing this false doctrine. I say
that because they have testified that they seek God, have prayed for Christ to
come in, and are humble in spirit, and wouldn’t say a bad word about anybody,
and wouldn’t hurt a flea. True
Christianity. But the doctrine also makes
many people arrogant, unable to self-inspect, and incapable of change. If wrapped in the cloak of a political party
(Republicans today), they often feel that if the economy is good, and if the
wealth keeps flowing in, their beliefs must be approved by God.
Irresistible Grace
This is the idea that if God has predestined you for heaven, He
must woo you through His Holy Spirit to accept Christ. Calvinists obtain this doctrine partly from
logic—i.e., if we are totally depraved, and if God already has eternal life
with your name on it, then it makes sense that He has to do the work of
convincing you that Jesus died for your sins, and a skeptic should accept that
logic. If someone seemed to accept Him, but then their lifestyle shows they
rejected Him, then the assumption we made that He elected them was wrong. Since God cannot be wrong, we misperceived
their “salvation.” God’s wooing of His
elect will always be successful—it will be irresistible. Their lifestyle will
prove it.
But as you can see, all this is founded upon (1) total depravity;
and (2) unconditional election. But we
have disproved both of these above, so the irresistible grace doctrine lacks
its major support. One of the few Scriptural verses that seem to back their
doctrine is Romans 9:19:
You will say to me then, “Why does He still find
fault? For who has resisted His will?
Notice the word “then;” this is a continuation of
a previous argument. The previous
argument, in Romans 9:10-18, was discussed under Calvin’s “unlimited election”—which
we disproved. As Romans 9:19 points out, when people ask this, they do not
understand what God is saying. They
assume He controls everyone’s fate, so how can He judge them, or make them
accountable, for their actions? “He
controls us,” they cry, and we cannot resist His choice to save or damn
us. So, they conclude, He is responsible
if my actions make me hell-bound. That’s not fair, they say.
But the previous verses, as we showed, talk about
foreknowledge. He simply knows ahead of time what choices people or nations
make. And as we said earlier, foreknowledge does not mean control. Scripture is
full of verses that still hold us accountable for sin, and how our own bad
choices could make us hell-bound. People
are blaming God for His ultimately judging them—they just don’t want to be held
accountable before God for their actions. Paul’s response to the accusatory
question in v. 19 continues in Romans 9:20-29, pretty much as I’m outlining it
here. The concepts are admittedly difficult, but their importance in light of
our eternal destiny means we should push through it to understanding. In the end, we should never assume God has
bad intentions at heart. It is
reasonable that a sovereign eternal God, with omniscience, may do things that
might be beyond our understanding. We
have to take it on faith that His love for us means that “all things work
together for good” (Romans 8:28)—rather than lashing out, blaming Him when
things go wrong.
In summary, since this tenet of Calvinism rests
on assumptions and verses that have been proven to be misinterpreted, we do not
need to go further into discussion on this point.
Perseverance of
the saints
This doctrine is what “once saved, always saved”
is based on. They look at Romans 8:39:
… nor height nor
depth, nor any other created thing, shall be able to separate us from the love
of God which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.
To dispute this, I would like to refer to my
previous three blogs on Calvinism. I would like to add some fresh words from
Thomas Taylor Ministries:
“The
Bible is very clear that it is possible to lose one’s salvation and every
Christian should be aware of that possibility.
Heb 10:26 – 31 explains it:
For if we sin
willfully after we have received the knowledge of the truth, there no
longer remains a sacrifice for sins, 27 but a certain
fearful expectation of judgment, and fiery indignation which will devour
the adversaries. 28 Anyone
who has rejected Moses’ law dies without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses. 29 Of how much worse
punishment, do you suppose, will he be thought worthy who has trampled the
Son of God underfoot, counted the blood of the covenant by which he
was sanctified a common thing, and insulted the Spirit of grace? 30 For we know Him
who said, “Vengeance is Mine, I will repay,” says the Lord. And
again, “The Lord will
judge His people.” 31 It
is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.
One attack that Calvinists use on this
statement is, How does the verse say we were once saved when the word “saved”
is not even used? Our answer is: It uses the phrase “received the knowledge of
the truth;” that’s salvation. So, the verses are clearly saying that once
saved, it’s possible (but disastrous) to fall back to be like the world, despising
again what God has done. He has given us
access to salvation by His Son, which we would be rejecting again, thus
trampling it underfoot; we would be despising Communion, which is effectively
taking His blood that was shed for us; and we would be turning away from the
power of sanctification, this method of freedom from the slavery of sin--that
is only offered to His children. Of
course, we critically need to understand the phrase to “sin willfully” that
brings about these disasters from God, this horror of a broken relationship
with God. Look at the words, “fearful expectation of judgment,” “fiery
indignation,” “devour the adversaries,” too.
Do these not describe the pit of hell for these people? Do these not prostrate us, cause us to ask,
“God, what are you saying here? Have I sinned willfully?” (If you sincerely ask
it with a repentful heart, you probably haven’t). Maybe the answer is in Hebrews 6:4-6:
For it is impossible for those who
were once enlightened, and have tasted the heavenly gift, and have
become partakers of the Holy Spirit, 5 and have tasted
the good word of God and the powers of the age to come, 6if
they fall away, to renew them again to repentance, since they crucify
again for themselves the Son of God, and put Him to an open shame.
Verses 4 and 5
clearly teach that this person was saved, and has seen the many benefits of
salvation. If they then “fall away,”
they have lost their salvation. They trigger, again, horrible responses from God.
Now another phrase
of importance: What is “falling away?”
My own thought on
defining these two phrases is, let’s start with “sin willfully.” As we proved before, this person was
saved. “Sin willfully” probably means,
you’re consciously thinking, “I know this is wrong, but I’m going to ignore the
Holy Spirit’s pleas and do it anyhow; it’s just too pleasant to ignore.” And perhaps
you never repent of it, or perhaps you “repent,” but do it again. (We have to
be careful that we really “repent.” Study what it is.) The Bible speaks of “hardening of the
heart.” That implies that doing a sin,
even if you repent, and doing it over again, you experience hardening of the
heart. Eventually you don’t even believe
yourself when you “repent”—and eventually you stop “repenting,” because you
know that you’ll do the sin again, and you’re a hypocrite for pretending to
repent. If you sin over and over and do
not really improve (by sinning less) after you were saved, (or if you are not
gradually releasing yourself from addiction after you were saved), and you
enjoy the sin too much to resist, and repeatedly squelch the Holy Spirit, you
are unlikely to be saved anymore. Thus you can lose your salvation, and your
“perseverance” does not happen. And
Calvinism is wrong because this downslide happens somewhere in America frequently. I’ve seen it, and I’ve heard people testify
of it.
Now, thinking
about “falling away;” it so happens that this is the definition of
apostasy. In order to “fall away” from something,
you had to be attached to that something, right? So to “fall away” from the truth, you had to
be attached to the truth in the first place.
Logically, that says this person was initially saved—but fell away and
became unsaved. Also, as we have pointed
out, the verses above also say this person was saved. After they were saved, they
“fell away.” Perhaps they came to
rejecting the intellectual truths of Scripture, but preferred to conjure up
doctrines to live by instead, or preferred to live by heretical beliefs of
religions that aren’t even close to adopting the Apostle’s Creed—which is the
unalterable creed of a real Christian. They could, on the other hand, fall away
into the world as well (some Christians call this “backsliding”). But if you’re
so ensnared with the world, God cannot keep you. He requires that you live
holy, you carry a light, you’re separated from the world’s culture. You would be putting Christ to an open shame.
And once again, you lose the salvation you once had. (I’ve got better proofs in my blogs.) And again, there is no “perseverance,” and
Calvinism is wrong.
So there you have
it, wrecking all 5 points of Calvinism from Scripture. For those who are “3-point Calvinists,” or “4
point Calvinists,” or the hard-as-a-rock “5-point Calvinists,” it’s best to
just be a “no-point” Calvinist. All its
tenets are un-Scriptural and wrong. Its leader,
John Calvin, might not have been a saved man.
(I have another blog just on him).
Don’t just “go with the flow.”
The question of heaven or hell is too important for that. Read Scripture thoroughly, with meditation. Spend time studying this—avoiding hell is
worth it.
Acknowledging
again the sermon of pastor Anderson, Five points of Calvinism Refuted, in
2013. He was brief on these latter
points, he was running out of time. His
ideas in Part 2 have also been softened, edited, and summarized, and much of
mine added.
No comments:
Post a Comment