Predestination and TULIP: True or False? (Part 2 of 2)

 

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 by Calvin that our Lord died on the Cross only for the elect, those who were predestined to be saved.  Many knowledgeable Calvinists do not hold to this doctrine these days. How could any Calvinist defend this idea, when there are too many Scriptures that indicate that Christ died for all people, giving all a means of salvation, if they choose it.  The verses I will cover prove that God makes Christ’s atonement available to everyone.  All people have the potential of being right with God.  God wants all to be saved (see I Tim. 2:3,4 for instance).  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 puts a damper on their doctrine.  It clearly says that Jesus died even for the "un-elect" 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 believe that Adam’s sin affected everybody; no man has ever been sinless their entire life since him (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 complementary 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 exact 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.

Calvinists like to assume, in phases "ours only" and "for the whole world" he is speaking for the saved Jews (“ours”) and ultimately for the saved Gentiles.  (As long as it’s for saved people only). But this is speculation; the Greek gives no solid basis for that interpretation.  When taken in context with other verses like I showed above, it leans toward this conclusion that “not for ours only” doesn’t mean saved Gentiles. It proves  instead, that Christ also died for the ultimately unsaved and everyone unborn as well.

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 (in an age when  your wealth was a sign of whether you were marriageable, or a sign of whether you were of good character), the ones who felt that wealth was a sign of God's beneficence and a stamp on their assurance that they were saved.  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 an 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.  However, the doctrine also makes many people arrogant, unable to self-inspect, and incapable of change. They don’t acknowledge it, but they might be the guy praying, “I think thee, O God, that I am not like this tax collector…”(Luke 18).

Irresistible Grace    

This is the idea that if God has predestined you for heaven, and God never fails in His mission, He must successfully 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 then chooses His family, and already has eternal life with your name unconditionally on it, then it makes sense that He has to regenerate you, so your eyes are opened, and you are led to Him. If someone seemed to accept Him, but then their lifestyle shows they later rejected Him, then the assumption we make about them that He elected them was wrong.  Since God cannot be wrong, we misperceived their moment of “salvation" --it didn't really exist.  God’s wooing of His elect will always be successful—it will be irresistible. And 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 last week, so the irresistible grace doctrine lacks its foundation of 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?

They would say, this verse teaches that no one can resist His will.  But notice the word “then;” that means this is a continuation of a previous argument.  The previous argument, in Romans 9:10-18, was discussed under Calvin’s “unconditional election”—which we disproved in our last blog.

As Romans 9:19ff explains, when people ask "who can resist His will?", 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 in Romans 9, as we showed last week, 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 still blame God for His ultimately judging them—they just don’t want to be held accountable before God for their actions. They consider their rebellion against God and His rules "freedom." 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 spend time thinking and praying on it, and push through 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. When we spend most of our time ignoring God, well, what can 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 that you cannot lose your salvation once God has placed you in the elect.  It is what the “once saved, always saved” doctrine 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 mention June and October's blogs on “once saved, always saved,” and the blog on  John Calvin himself. 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.

The verses clearly say that it’s possible that once you have the blessings of salvation, it’s possible to lose it. They count the disastrous things a person has done, as I have underlined. 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;” and “there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins;” that was salvation that you had.

To further prove it, I cite Revelation 22:19:

…if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part from the Book of Life

So, the verses are clearly saying that once saved, it’s possible (but disastrous) to fall back, 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 means we were symbolically taking His blood that was shed for us--and now reject; 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 “sin willfully” that brings about these disasters from God. We're thinking "I know this is a serious sin that God hates, but I'm going to do it anyway; my pleasure trumps my concern over what God thinks." This is a brazen, broken relationship with God. Look at the words, “fearful expectation of judgment,” “fiery indignation,” “devour the adversaries,” too.  Do these not describe the anger of God, 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?” Sincere repentance after doing so can gain God's favor again. (We have to be careful that we really “repent.” Study Scripture for what it is.) We should confess to Him regularly.

Now let's look at another phrase of importance: What is “falling away?” My own thought on defining is, The Bible speaks of “hardening of the heart.”  That implies that doing a sin, even if you repent, and then doing it over again, you likely experience hardening of the heart.  If you keep repeating the sin, 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 realize you’re a hypocrite for pretending to repent.  If you sin over and over and do not really improve (by sinning less or not doing it further) after you were saved, and you enjoy the sin too much to resist, and give in, and repeatedly squelch the Holy Spirit--you are unlikely to be saved anymore. But that depends on how bad the sin was.  (Sorry, I'm not giving you the "security" that everyone wants by discussing “how bad.”). Thus you can lose your salvation, and your “perseverance” ends without repentance.  And Calvinism is wrong because this downslide happens somewhere in America frequently.  I’ve seen it, and I’ve heard people testify of it. God hates us giving in to sin lightly.  Think of Jesus' discussion in Matthew 5:29-30:

If your right eye causes you to sin, pluck it out and cast it from you; for it is more profitable for you that one of your members perish, than for your whole body to be cast into hell. ³⁰ And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and cast it from you; for it is more profitable for you that one of your members perish, than for your whole body to be cast into hell.

This is called "hyperbole."  Jesus doesn't expect us to make ourselves go blind.  But He's making a point of the seriousness, how we could lose our salvation, and I think the grisly image will do the job.  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.  Perhaps it also could be 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 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; you must realize the danger, and try like crazy to disassociate from it. He requires that you live holy.  Assuming you've made public your attachment to Christ, you carry a light, and you must separate from the world’s culture, lest you drag His name through the mud with your sinful activities.  You would be putting Christ to an "open shame," as the verse says. And once again, you lose the salvation you once had.    So, more proof that there is no guarantee of our “perseverance,” like we can float along and not worry about sin. Calvinism is wrong for instituting such pride or complacency.

So there you have it, all 5 points of Calvinism are separated from Scriptural proof.  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. Just be a close follower of Jesus' Words. Learn to read your Scripture with discernment, taking ALL of it into account.  These tenets are un-Scriptural and wrong.  Its leader, John Calvin, might not have been a saved man.  (see an October blog).  Don’t just “go with the flow” of your denomination's beliefs, or consider them all unquestionable. Are you uncomfortable about feeling disloyal, or don't want to be apart from the crowd?  What if it causes the loss of heaven?   Who deserves your loyalty?  Only Jesus, not your deluded friends.  Do not other denominations have different doctrines as well?  Can we assume that all their followers are stupid?  Find the doctrine of Christ.  The question of heaven or hell is too important for this quibbling.  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.