Limited Atonement - The L in the TULIP

Limited Atonement:

Limited atonement declares that the mission and death of Christ was restricted to a limited number—to his people, to his sheep.[1]

In other words, the Calvinist believes that Christ died only for the elect, those predestined to salvation from the foundation of the world. This, of course, would be logical if the first two points, total depravity and unconditional election, were true. If God decided who was going to be saved, why would Jesus die for anyone else? And it seems that Calvinists rarely, if ever, use Scripture to back up this tenet, choosing merely to point to the logical demands for it. Since their first two points actually aren’t true, an appeal to logical consistency fails. The premise upon which they build their arguments has already crumbled, so this house of cards is easily blown away.

What the Calvinists prefer to do is defend their position against the Bible passages that prove it to be false, and they attack opposing views by saying that a universal atonement can’t be true because not everyone is saved.

For example, the following verse indicates that Christ died for all.

He Himself is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world. (1 John 2:2)

            Let’s look at R.C. Sproul’s explanation, and I’ll comment on it as we go.

The world for whom Christ died cannot mean the entire human family. It must refer to the universality of the elect (People from every tribe and nation) or the inclusion of Gentiles in addition to the world of the Jews. It was a Jew who wrote that Jesus did not die merely for our sins but for the sins of the whole world. Does the word our refer to believers or to believing Jews?

We must remember that one of the cardinal points of the New Testament concerned the inclusion of the Gentiles in God’s plan of salvation. Salvation was of the Jews but not restricted to the Jews. Wherever it is said that Christ died for all, some limitation must be added or the conclusion would have to be universalism or a mere potential atonement.[2]

Sproul tries to make us believe that “whole world” means the world outside of Judaism, that John means something to the effect of “other nations besides the Jews.” Does John say that? Not at all. Where in the context does he refer to Jews and Gentiles? Nowhere. Sproul has to conjure this meaning in order to make it fit his system. When the Scripture writers wished to make the Israel versus Gentiles distinction, they were quite capable of doing so. For example:

Is God the God of Jews only? Is He not the God of Gentiles also? Yes, of Gentiles also, since indeed God who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through faith is one. (Romans 3:29-30)

This is the blatant error that Calvinists so often commit, making unreasonable assertions about Scripture and indefensible insertions into Scripture in order to make the Bible fit their preconceived notions. Why not allow the Scripture to create and inform our system rather than the other way around?

As we continue to look at Sproul’s argument we should ask, why can’t “world” mean the entire human family? Because, according to Sproul, it would necessitate either universalism or potential atonement. Universalism means that everyone is saved, while potential atonement means that Christ died for people who might or might not be saved. Universalism is easily refuted from Scripture; clearly not everyone is saved. Potential atonement, however, is exactly what is , that Christ died so that everyone has the opportunity to be saved, though not all will respond to God’s gracious offer.

Such a notion is scandalous to the Calvinist. That God’s desire could somehow be thwarted by man’s decision is beyond their comprehension. As Sproul goes on to explain.

Christ’s atonement was real. It effected all that God and Jesus intended by it. The design of God was not and cannot be frustrated by human unbelief. The sovereign God sovereignly sent his Son to atone for his people.[3]

But God is often frustrated by human unbelief. The Bible is bursting with examples.

O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, the way a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were unwilling. (Matthew 23:37)

Wasn’t God frustrated with obstinate Israel in the wilderness, in their desire for a king, and in their response to the Babylonian invasion? Of course He was. God’s desire for obedience is often thwarted, and His desire for each person to be saved is often unrealized. But God’s ultimate purpose is never thwarted.

Sproul continues:

Our election is in Christ. We are saved by him, in him, and for him. The motive for our salvation is not merely the love God has for us. It is especially grounded in the love the Father has for the Son. God insists that his Son will see the travail of his soul and be satisfied. There never has been the slightest possibility that Christ could have died in vain. If man is truly dead in sin and in bondage to sin, a mere potential or conditional atonement not only may have ended in failure but most certainly would have ended in failure. Arminians have no sound reason to believe that Jesus did not die in vain. They are left with a Christ who tried to save everybody but actually saved nobody.[4]

Here we see Sproul appealing to the logical conclusion of his system, that if man is truly dead in sin, at least in the Total Depravity of Man view, then no one would ever come to faith. The strangeness of this argument is that he juxtaposes two opposing systems in order to argue for his own. In other words, he says something like this. “Arminians have no sound reason to believe that Jesus did not die in vain, because since man is Totally Depraved, none would ever come to faith.” But we deny Total Depravity! Those who oppose Calvinism (Arminians and others) have sound reason, because we don’t agree with Calvinist notions. We believe man is capable of responding to the gracious offering of salvation. Sproul’s is actually a rather confused argument and points out his inability to see outside his tightly sealed systematic box.

(Note: Calvinists tend to label as Arminians all who oppose their beliefs. This is a faulty notion. Not all who oppose Calvinism are Arminians. I am not one. This is another Calvinist fallacy.)

It is true that God’s ultimate design is not thwarted. God has graciously offered salvation to all by freely giving His Son in painful, bloody sacrifice. All who respond in faith are saved. This is God’s purpose, that all who call upon His name be brought to salvation. And in this, God’s desire NEVER fails. He never fails in saving someone who lifts up his hands in repentance. His saving arm never loses its power in pulling a soul from the pits of sin. His sturdy grip never releases a man who keeps his feet firmly on the path of life.

The atonement is potential in that it is potentially available to all. Not all respond. The atonement is not, however, unlimited in its effect. It is not automatically conferred upon people who do not respond.

Jesus Christ died in order to allow anyone who comes to Him in faith to be saved. That this sacrificial grace is available to everyone in the world is abundantly clear in Scripture, and efforts to prove otherwise fail, exposed as efforts to preserve a doctrinal system by adding words and notions that don’t exist in the Bible.

John 3:16
16 “For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish, but have eternal life.

Whom does God love? Only the elect? That's what Calvinists believe, but the verse says nothing of the sort. Those roads have to be blatantly inserted in order to fit their system.

1 Timothy 2:1-6
2:1 First of all, then, I urge that entreaties and prayers, petitions and thanksgivings, be made on behalf of all men, 2 for kings and all who are in authority, in order that we may lead a tranquil and quiet life in all godliness and dignity. 3 This is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, 4 who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. 5 For there is one God, and one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, 6 who gave Himself as a ransom for all, the testimony borne at the proper time.

Whom does God desire to be saved? All men. Again, the Calvinists have to insert words to make phrases that fit their system, such as "all elect men." Such a notion isn't there.

2 Peter 3:9
The Lord is not slow about His promise, as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing for any to perish but for all to come to repentance.

Does God want all to come to repentance or only the elect? The text says all, but the Calvinists add words to make it say "all the elect" or something similar.

Again, the Calvinists have no Scripture to back up the notion that Jesus died only for the elect. They rely instead on logical inference, that since, according to them, the first two points are true, then this one must be true as well. Yet, the first two points aren't true, and the Scriptures deny the third, so this idea that Jesus died only for the elect is hereby refuted.


[1] Chosen by God page 205.

[2] Chosen by God pages 206-207.

[3] Ibid.

[4] Ibid.

Unconditional Election - The U in the TULIP

Unconditional Election:

This is the identifying statement of Calvinism, in other words, the doctrine that most people think about when they consider Calvinistic predestination. Following is a statement defining this doctrine, written by a prominent Calvinist.

Unconditional election means that our election is decided by God according to His purpose, according to His sovereign will. It is not based on some foreseen condition that some of us meet and others fail to meet. It is not based on our willing or on our running, but upon the sovereign purpose of God.[1]

When we say that election is unconditional we mean that the original decree by God by which he chooses some people to be saved is not dependent upon some future condition in us that God foresees. There is nothing is us that God could foresee that would induce him to choose us. The only thing he would foresee in the lives of fallen creatures left to themselves would be sin. God chooses us simply according to the good pleasure of his will.[2]

The Calvinist argues that God chooses people to be saved based on nothing in the person, yet they claim that God’s choice is not arbitrary. As R. C. Sproul writes:

To be arbitrary is to do something for no reason. Now, it is clear that there is no reason found in us for God to choose us. But that is not the same as saying that God has no reason in himself. God doesn’t do anything without a reason. He is not capricious or whimsical. God is as sober as he is sovereign.[3]

God predestines us according to what pleases him. … What pleases God is goodness. … Though the reason for choosing us does not lie in us but in the sovereign divine pleasure, we may rest assured that the sovereign divine pleasure is a good pleasure.[4]

The Calvinist argues that God’s reason is his “good pleasure,” yet he never defines what that is or what brings about that pleasure. Whatever it is, however, it is nothing in the individual being elected. This, of course, is blatantly illogical. The only reason for choosing one individual over another must, by necessity, be in the individual being chosen. Otherwise there can’t possibly be a reason to choose. To say, “It’s God’s good pleasure” completely begs the question. In other words, “How does this choice bring about God’s pleasure?”

The Calvinist gives no answer. He prefers the logical inconsistency, shrugs his shoulders, and says it’s a mystery about God that we can’t understand.

Here’s a dictionary definition of arbitrary:

Arbitrary
1.     Determined by chance, whim, or impulse, and not by necessity, reason, or principle: stopped at the first motel we passed, an arbitrary choice; arbitrary division of the group into halves.
2.     Based on or subject to individual judgment or preference: The diet imposes overall calorie limits, but daily menus are arbitrary.
3.     Established by a court or judge rather than by a specific law or statute: an arbitrary penalty.
4.     Not limited by law; despotic: the arbitrary rule of a dictator.

The Calvinists want a positive spin on both sides on their doctrine. They can’t allow for God to use anything in man as a reason to bring about His choice. Otherwise, there would be something in an individual that merits the choice, giving that individual some reason to boast. But they also can’t allow for there to be no reason at all. That would make God arbitrary, capricious, a divine being who seems to draw from straws to see who will share His everlasting glory and who, on the other hand, will gnash his teeth and suffer in the eternal doom of Hell. So they simply appeal to mystery, saying that it’s “God’s pleasure,” which, of course, is no explanation at all.

This appeal to mystery lacks intellectual integrity, and it’s unnecessary. God does have a reason for bringing about salvation to mankind. God responds to the faith an individual has in Christ the Savior.

We’ll look at some of the passages the Calvinist uses to support his view and see why their view of election and predestination is completely false.

We must understand, first of all, that real, biblical predestination does not mean, “God’s predetermined decision to choose certain people to salvation.” And predestination and election do not necessarily have the same meaning. The problem is that the Calvinistic understanding of these key words is pervasive, and many people presume their definitions whenever they see these words in Scripture. We must not get caught in the trap of assuming this meaning whenever we see “predestined” or “elect.”

God does elect people to certain acts and purposes, and some of these election decisions are determined long ago, but that doesn’t mean election and predestination are the same thing. God can elect a person to do something without deciding this election well before the event. “Predestined” purposes, on the other hand, are those that are unchangeable “destinies,” determined before a person acts, before he the purpose is ready to be fulfilled. Let’s look at some of the passages to see what we mean.

Ephesians 1:3-14
3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ, 4 just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before Him. In love 5 He predestined us to adoption as sons through Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the kind intention of His will, 6 to the praise of the glory of His grace, which He freely bestowed on us in the Beloved. 7 In Him we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of His grace, 8 which He lavished upon us. In all wisdom and insight 9 He made known to us the mystery of His will, according to His kind intention which He purposed in Him 10 with a view to an administration suitable to the fulness of the times, that is, the summing up of all things in Christ, things in the heavens and things upon the earth. In Him 11 also we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to His purpose who works all things after the counsel of His will, 12 to the end that we who were the first to hope in Christ should be to the praise of His glory. 13 In Him, you also, after listening to the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation—having also believed, you were sealed in Him with the Holy Spirit of promise, 14 who is given as a pledge of our inheritance, with a view to the redemption of God’s own possession, to the praise of His glory.

Every time we see the words “elect,” “chose,” “predestined,” or similar words, we have to ask the following: “Who is being chosen?” and “For what purpose was the choice made?” We cannot, as the Calvinists do, suppose that every use means, “Individuals being chosen for salvation.”

Look at verse 4, “just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before Him.”

Who is chosen?  Us in Him. Who are “us in Him.” Believers in Christ.

For what purpose? To be holy and blameless.

This means that God decided before the foundation of the world that believers would be holy and blameless. It does not say that God decided who those believers would be.

How about verse 5? “He predestined us to adoption as sons through Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the kind intention of His will.”

Who is predestined? Us. Again, believers.

For what purpose? To be adopted as sons.

This means that God decided long ago that believers would be adopted as sons. It does not say that God decided who these believers would be.

Important sidetrack: What is adoption?

Who are the sons of God? How do we know who they are?

12 So then, brethren, we are under obligation, not to the flesh, to live according to the flesh— 13 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. 14 For all who are being led by the Spirit of God, these are sons of God. 15 For you have not received a spirit of slavery leading to fear again, but you have received a spirit of adoption as sons by which we cry out, “Abba! Father!” 16 The Spirit Himself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God, 17 and if children, heirs also, heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ, if indeed we suffer with Him in order that we may also be glorified with Him. (Romans 8:12-17)

22 For we know that the whole creation groans and suffers the pains of childbirth together until now. 23 And not only this, but also we ourselves, having the first fruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our body. 24 For in hope we have been saved, but hope that is seen is not hope; for why does one also hope for what he sees? 25 But if we hope for what we do not see, with perseverance we wait eagerly for it.  (Romans 8:22-25)

4 But when the fulness of the time came, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under the Law, 5 in order that He might redeem those who were under the Law, that we might receive the adoption as sons. 6 And because you are sons, God has sent forth the Spirit of His Son into our hearts, crying, “Abba! Father!” (Galatians 4:4-6)

And that brings us back to Ephesians:

13 In Him, you also, after listening to the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation—having also believed, you were sealed in Him with the Holy Spirit of promise, 14 who is given as a pledge of our inheritance, with a view to the redemption of God’s own possession, to the praise of His glory.

We are sons, and the only way the world knows we are God’s sons is by our obedience to Him (Romans 8:14). There will come a day when the whole world will know whose we are, when the fullness of the time reveals our true identity, when God comes to claim His own. Until then, we have a pledge, the Spirit of Promise dwelling within us, who tells us that we are His. The public claiming of God’s sons is our adoption. Until then, we are, in a sense, sons in secret, our display of God’s light in us being the identifying mark of our sonship.

Therefore, being predestined to adoption as sons simply means that God decided before the foundation of the world that all believers will be adopted as sons. They won’t be left as orphans, cut off from God’s family. We have a pledge, a promise that God will eventually take us into His heavenly home where we will be co-heirs with His Son, Jesus Christ.

The important point to emphasize is that adoption is not the same thing as salvation. It is something that happens in addition to salvation, a future event in which God’s sons will find the consummation of their sonship.


Now we’ll get back to looking at the issue of predestination. Look at verses 11 and 12 in Ephesians chapter 1.

In Him 11 also we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to His purpose who works all things after the counsel of His will, 12 to the end that we who were the first to hope in Christ should be to the praise of His glory.

Who is predestined? We are. Again, these are believers.

For what purpose? That we should be to the praise of His glory.

This is a choice of a group for a purpose other than salvation, not a choice of which individuals will be saved.

Therefore, in Ephesians, we see that God predestines that Christians will do or obtain certain things, that we will be holy and blameless, that we will be adopted as sons, and that we will be to the praise of His glory. There is nothing in this passage that says that God decided to save certain individuals. To gain such a meaning from this passage is to read something that isn’t there.

The Calvinist view of predestination, therefore, fails the test of Scripture. The Bible simply doesn’t say what the Calvinist believes. Using our interpretation, God’s character is upheld. There is nothing evil or unjust in God deciding beforehand what He is going to do with His faithful believers after they come to faith.

Now we’ll go on to another passage Calvinists use, one they call “The Golden Chain of Salvation.”

Romans 8:28-30
28 And we know that God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to His purpose. 29 For whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the first-born among many brethren; 30 and whom He predestined, these He also called; and whom He called, these He also justified; and whom He justified, these He also glorified.

According to the Calvinist, this chain of God’s activities proves the basics of Calvinistic predestination. Supposedly, whomever God foreknew, he predestined to salvation. Whomever He predestined, he called to salvation. Whomever he called to salvation, He justified. Whomever He justified, He glorified. In other words, God made all the decisions, and he irresistibly called to salvation all whom he predestined.

Simply put, the passage doesn’t say that at all.

The context of the passage is how God works events together for good for those who love Him, those who are called according to His purpose. So, when it says, “whom He foreknew,” who is in mind? The ones who love Him, the ones called to His purpose. The Greek bears this out. “Whom” is masculine plural, harkening back to its antecedent, “called,” a masculine plural noun, and every “whom” and every use of “these” thereafter is masculine plural.

The question that the Calvinist answers incorrectly is, “Who is included in the first ‘whom’ in verse 29?” They assume that it’s the people who are elected to salvation. The problem is, the verse doesn’t say that. In context with the preceding verse, “whom” refers to “those who love God,” “those who are called according to His purpose.” The “whom” in verse 29, therefore, refers to faithful followers of Christ.

Once it’s established about whom Paul is speaking, we can explain what the “chain” of verses 29 and 30 is all about. Let’s flesh out the verse by restating in paraphrase with the antecedent in place.

For God knew beforehand about the people who would love Him, the people who answered His call, and He predestined them to become conformed to the image of His Son. Why? That Christ might be the first-born of many brothers. And these same people he predestined to this image conformity, he also called. And these people He called, He also justified. And these people He justified, He also glorified.

This is not a “Golden Chain of Salvation.” It doesn’t talk about how God chooses individuals to be saved. It’s about how God treats and has treated faithful believers. This is actually a “Golden Chain of God’s Work in Believers.”

The context is crucial. Look at verses 26 and 27: 26 And in the same way the Spirit also helps our weakness; for we do not know how to pray as we should, but the Spirit Himself intercedes for us with groanings too deep for words; 27 and He who searches the hearts knows what the mind of the Spirit is, because He intercedes for the saints according to the will of God.

The “Golden chain” is given to explain why and how God works; it’s given to encourage believers who need intercessory help from the Holy Spirit. “Why does God allow my suffering?” a reader might ask. The encouragement comes from the apostle in this form. “Don’t be troubled. God works it all out for good for you, because you love Him. And don’t forget. God has planned all of this. He knew beforehand that those who follow Him would suffer for His name, and He predestined that all who follow Him would be conformed to the image of Christ.

Being conformed to the image of Christ is our calling; through our suffering we are honed into the righteous image of the Son of God. And when we are made into that image, Christ then has holy brothers, among whom He is the first-born.

I trust that you can see the Calvinist error. They see the word “predestined” and automatically assume that it means election of individuals to salvation. We see that it really means that God has decided beforehand that believers in Christ will be conformed to His image. That’s exactly what the verse says, and the Calvinist adds a meaning that simply isn’t there in order to make the passage fit his preconceived doctrinal system.

Other “unconditional election” passages:

13 But we should always give thanks to God for you, brethren beloved by the Lord, because God has chosen you from the beginning for salvation through sanctification by the Spirit and faith in the truth. 14 And it was for this He called you through our gospel, that you may gain the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ. 15 So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter from us. (2 Thess. 2:13-15)

Who is chosen? You, that is, believers.

For what purpose? For salvation. In this context, it means saving people from the wrath to come. In other words, God has chosen that believers would be saved from His wrath. This does not mean God has decided who those believers would be.
 
10 For this reason I endure all things for the sake of those who are chosen, that they also may obtain the salvation which is in Christ Jesus and with it eternal glory. (2 Timothy 2:10)

Who is chosen? Paul doesn’t specifically say, but he endures all things so that they may obtain salvation.

For what purpose? Paul doesn’t specifically say, but since he endures so that they may obtain salvation, then it seems that what they are chosen for isn’t necessarily for salvation, because it seems that the obtaining of it isn’t secure.

1:1 Paul, a bond-servant of God, and an apostle of Jesus Christ, for the faith of those chosen of God and the knowledge of the truth which is according to godliness, 2 in the hope of eternal life, which God, who cannot lie, promised long ages ago (Titus 1:1-2)

Who is chosen? Apparently those who have faith.

For what purpose? He doesn’t specifically say, so to claim that this choosing is a predestined choosing of which individuals will be saved is a wild stretch.

1:1 Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to those who reside as aliens, scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, who are chosen 2 according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, by the sanctifying work of the Spirit, that you may obey Jesus Christ and be sprinkled with His blood: May grace and peace be yours in fullest measure. (1 Peter 1:1-3)

Who is chosen? The recipients of this letter, presumably believers.

For what purpose? That they would obey Jesus Christ and be sprinkled with His blood.

Therefore, God chose that believers would obey Christ and be sprinkled by His blood. It does not say that God decided which individuals would be believers.

2 We give thanks to God always for all of you, making mention of you in our prayers; 3 constantly bearing in mind your work of faith and labor of love and steadfastness of hope in our Lord Jesus Christ in the presence of our God and Father, 4 knowing, brethren beloved by God, His choice of you; 5 for our gospel did not come to you in word only, but also in power and in the Holy Spirit and with full conviction; just as you know what kind of men we proved to be among you for your sake. (1 Thess 1:2-5)

Who is chosen? Believers, those who are working out their faith and have steadfastness of hope in Christ.

For what purpose? This isn’t clear, but the following verses indicate that it might be for them to imitate Paul in his quest:

You also became imitators of us and of the Lord, having received the word in much tribulation with the joy of the Holy Spirit, so that you became an example to all the believers in Macedonia and in Achaia. (1 Thess 1:6-7)


There is nothing here to indicate that God chose which individuals would be saved.
Galatians 1:11-17

11 For I would have you know, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not according to man. 12 For I neither received it from man, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ. 13 For you have heard of my former manner of life in Judaism, how I used to persecute the church of God beyond measure, and tried to destroy it; 14 and I was advancing in Judaism beyond many of my contemporaries among my countrymen, being more extremely zealous for my ancestral traditions. 15 But when He who had set me apart, even from my mother’s womb, and called me through His grace, was pleased 16 to reveal His Son in me, that I might preach Him among the Gentiles, I did not immediately consult with flesh and blood, 17 nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before me; but I went away to Arabia, and returned once more to Damascus.

Verse 15 is often used by Calvinists to “prove” God’s predestined choice of a particular person for salvation. Again, we need to ask about God’s choice, in this context being represented by “had set me apart.” The Calvinist would have us believe that it means, “set me apart to be saved.” As usual, the Calvinist adds words that aren’t in the text.

Who is chosen? Paul was set apart.

What is the purpose? Since it was from his mother’s womb, the most likely meaning is to be a Jew, since that was what he was talking about.

Is the “called me through His grace” part of the setting apart? No. The calling comes after the setting apart as a Jew. He was called to salvation, but so is everyone else.

A closely related passage follows:

13 But Ananias answered, “Lord, I have heard from many about this man, how much harm he did to Thy saints at Jerusalem; 14 and here he has authority from the chief priests to bind all who call upon Thy name.” 15 But the Lord said to him, “Go, for he is a chosen instrument of Mine, to bear My name before the Gentiles and kings and the sons of Israel; 16 for I will show him how much he must suffer for My name’s sake.” (Acts 9:13-16)

Who is chosen? Paul.

What is the purpose? To bear Christ’s name before the Gentiles, etc.

There is nothing here that says Paul was chosen for salvation.

Acts 13:44-48

44 And the next Sabbath nearly the whole city assembled to hear the word of God. 45 But when the Jews saw the crowds, they were filled with jealousy, and began contradicting the things spoken by Paul, and were blaspheming. 46 And Paul and Barnabas spoke out boldly and said, “It was necessary that the word of God should be spoken to you first; since you repudiate it, and judge yourselves unworthy of eternal life, behold, we are turning to the Gentiles. 47 “For thus the Lord has commanded us,
‘I have placed You as a light for the Gentiles,
That You should bring salvation to the end of the earth.’”
 48 And when the Gentiles heard this, they began rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord; and as many as had been appointed to eternal life believed.

The last verse in this passage has been misused by many, and for good reason. Most Bibles (perhaps all) mistranslate verse 48.

The Greek allows for two different “voices” in the verb phrase that’s translated, “had been appointed to eternal life.” Here, it’s translated in the passive voice, rather than the active voice. Passive means that someone has appointed them, while active would mean that they appointed someone else. If it’s passive, then the believers didn’t actively do anything. The Greek structure in this verse doesn’t allow for active voice.

The Greek phrase does allow, however, for middle voice. The ending of the verb can be either middle or passive. Middle voice means that the believers did something to themselves. With the middle voice the verse would be translated something like this: “And all those who had agreed (or had aligned themselves) to eternal life believed.” Their faith didn’t come about because of divine appointment; it was the result of their willingness to believe.

This middle voice alternative makes more sense than does the passive when considered in the context. In verse 46, Paul speaks of those who judge themselves unworthy of eternal life. Verse 48 merely shows the contrast, that those who listened and believed were the opposite of those mentioned earlier. The ones who believed did not judge themselves unworthy.

Romans Chapter 9

Romans chapter 9 is considered by many Calvinists to be their most powerful proof text, their absolute proof that their doctrine of particular election to salvation is true. It should be no surprise, then, that they badly misunderstand the purpose and meaning of this chapter. I’ll quote the entire chapter here, section by section, and we’ll ask questions about each section, but let’s jump ahead and read verse 30 first, because we have to keep Paul’s conclusion in mind if we’re going to understand the argument that precedes it.

Romans 9:30 - What shall we say then? That Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, attained righteousness, even the righteousness which is by faith;

Now, with this verse in mind, let’s proceed.

9:1 I am telling the truth in Christ, I am not lying, my conscience bearing me witness in the Holy Spirit, 2 that I have great sorrow and unceasing grief in my heart. 3 For I could wish that I myself were accursed, separated from Christ for the sake of my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh, 4 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, 5 whose are the fathers, and from whom is the Christ according to the flesh, who is over all, God blessed forever. Amen.

What is Paul’s concern? For whom is he grieving and why? How are they special?

He is concerned about his brethren, Israelites. After all, they received the covenants and promises.
 
6 But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For they are not all Israel who are descended from Israel; 7 neither are they all children because they are Abraham’s descendants, but: “through Isaac your descendants will be named.”  8 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. 9 For this is a word of promise: “At this time I will come, and Sarah shall have a son.”  10 And not only this, but there was Rebekah also, when she had conceived twins by one man, our father Isaac; 11 for though the twins were not yet born, and had not done anything good or bad, in order that God’s purpose according to His choice might stand, not because of works, but because of Him who calls, 12 it was said to her, “The older will serve the younger.”  13 Just as it is written, “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.”

In verses 6-8, Paul provides the reason that his brethren according to the flesh are in trouble. Only children of the promise are true descendants. Not all the children of the flesh are going to be in the new covenant. They are not all children of the promise.

Paul then gives us examples of promises in verse 9 and 12. It is crucial to understand that the promise is in verse 12 ends with verse 12. The verse Paul quotes in 13 was not part of the promise made to Rebekah. Verse 13 is provided as proof that the promise was fulfilled. It was not part of the promise itself.

Also notice that this promise has nothing to do with salvation. It involves only who will serve whom, and the “Jacob I loved part …” is merely showing us proof that the promise came to pass. It says nothing about God deciding beforehand that He would love Jacob and not Esau.

Here is my attempt to succinctly state what Paul is trying to tell us up to this point.

Paul is grieved over the Israelites and their lack of following God by faith. They continue to try to achieve salvation by following according to the Law. God says that His people are those who are children of promise, and he gives us an example of how God makes a choice based on His purposes rather than on the actions of the people involved. This is not a choice for salvation. Rather it is an example of how God makes a decision. Similarly, God has decided that people who have faith will be saved, not those who attempt to be saved by works. This decision is God’s choice, not man’s.

Let’s continue with Romans chapter 9.

14 What shall we say then? There is no injustice with God, is there? May it never be! 15 For He says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.”  16 So then it does not depend on the man who wills or the man who runs, but on God who has mercy. 17 For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, “For this very purpose I raised you up, to demonstrate My power in you, and that My name might be proclaimed throughout the whole earth.”  18 So then He has mercy on whom He desires, and He hardens whom He desires.

With this in mind, what possible charge of injustice could someone bring against God? None at all. God has decided that those who have faith will be saved, not those who try to achieve salvation by following the Law. That choice of how to save is up to God, not up to men.

In verse 15, the Calvinist claims that God has mercy and compassion on those He elects to salvation, but it doesn’t say that at all. It simply says that God decided on whom He will have mercy. It says nothing about predetermined, individual election to salvation. That’s why the conclusion in verse 30 is so crucial. This entire section is explaining that God decided that He will have mercy on those who have faith, and Paul is defending God’s ability to make that decision.

Verse 17 and 18, then, are simply another example of God deciding what to do with people. He is allowed to do so. And His decision to save by faith is within his authority.

19 You will say to me then, “Why does He still find fault? For who resists His will?” 20 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? 21 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? 22 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? 23 And He did so in order that He might make known the riches of His glory upon vessels of mercy, which He prepared beforehand for glory, 24 even us, whom He also called, not from among Jews only, but also from among Gentiles.

In verse 19, Paul raises a question that objectors might have. If God can make such decisions, why does he find fault and punish? Paul’s answer is quite dismissive, that man has no right to ask such a question, and then he goes into an illustration about a potter and clay. The basis for the decision to make a vessel for common use or for wrath is not a predetermined, individual election to salvation, but rather on the faith and/or works of the clay. There is nothing in this chapter to indicate an election based on God’s good pleasure, but there is a direct statement in verse 30 that the decision is based on the faith of the people. Therefore, God looks at the lumps of clay (people) and makes the pots based on the quality of the clay (their faith, which is proven by their works).

Some might claim that the word "beforehand" in verse 23 means that God decided before he made the pots that he would make them for glory, that is, before they had a chance to show faith or works. The problem with that idea is the assumption that "beforehand" means before the making of the pot. The language makes this idea impossible.

The text says that God prepared the vessels beforehand for glory. The "beforehand" must refer to a time before the receiving of the glory, not to the time before he made the vessels, because God couldn't possibly prepare the vessels before he made the vessels. Paul is saying that God prepared the vessels before they received the glory. The "which" in verse 23 refers to the vessels, not to the mercy ("which" in the Greek is plural, as is "vessels," while "mercy" is singular). God did not prepare the mercy beforehand, that is, before making the vessels to receive that mercy. God prepared the vessels before the reception of the glory. And it certainly doesn't state that God cannot change His mind regarding what He will do with these vessels. He might have prepared them to receive glory, but that doesn't mean the purpose couldn't change based on how the vessels turned out, as a similar illustration in Jeremiah demonstrates:

Jer 18:1  The word which came to Jeremiah from the LORD saying,
Jer 18:2  "Arise and go down to the potter's house, and there I will announce My words to you."
Jer 18:3  Then I went down to the potter's house, and there he was, making something on the wheel.
Jer 18:4  But the vessel that he was making of clay was spoiled in the hand of the potter; so he remade it into another vessel, as it pleased the potter to make.
Jer 18:5  Then the word of the LORD came to me saying,
Jer 18:6  "Can I not, O house of Israel, deal with you as this potter does?" declares the LORD. "Behold, like the clay in the potter's hand, so are you in My hand, O house of Israel.
Jer 18:7  "At one moment I might speak concerning a nation or concerning a kingdom to uproot, to pull down, or to destroy it;
Jer 18:8  if that nation against which I have spoken turns from its evil, I will relent concerning the calamity I planned to bring on it.
Jer 18:9  "Or at another moment I might speak concerning a nation or concerning a kingdom to build up or to plant it;
Jer 18:10  if it does evil in My sight by not obeying My voice, then I will think better of the good with which I had promised to bless it.

We see in verses 9 and 10 that God, as a potter, changes His mind with regard to what he will do with the clay based on the quality of the pot's faith and works. God had planned to build up a kingdom, but their evil caused Him to change His mind.

This is also true in Romans 9. God could plan for a pot to receive glory, deciding before the reception of the glory to do so, but that doesn't necessarily mean that this decision will remain. The decision could change if the pot is no longer worthy to receive the glory.

And now to Paul's conclusion in Romans 9:

25 As He says also in Hosea,
“I will call those who were not My people, ‘My people,’
And her who was not beloved, ‘beloved.’” 26 “And it shall be that in the place where it was said to them, ‘you are not My people,’
There they shall be called sons of the living God.”
 27 And Isaiah cries out concerning Israel, “Though the number of the sons of Israel be as the sand of the sea, it is the remnant that will be saved; 28 for the Lord will execute His word upon the earth, thoroughly and quickly.”  29 And just as Isaiah foretold,
“Except the Lord of Sabaoth had left to us a posterity,
We would have become as Sodom, and would have resembled Gomorrah.”
30 What shall we say then? That Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, attained righteousness, even the righteousness which is by faith; 31 but Israel, pursuing a law of righteousness, did not arrive at that law. 32 Why? Because they did not pursue it by faith, but as though it were by works. They stumbled over the stumbling stone, 33 just as it is written,
“Behold, I lay in Zion a stone of stumbling and a rock of offense,
And he who believes in Him will not be disappointed.”

Paul’s conclusion is that God, in His divine authority, has decided to save those who have faith, whether Jew or Gentile. Paul gave us examples of God’s right and power to make such decisions, decisions based on His own purposes, to show the riches of His glory. It follows, therefore, that God has the right to save people by faith rather than by works.

I have included all the major passages that Calvinists have used in my presence to prove unconditional election, and I have shown that these passages simply do not say what the Calvinists claim that they say.

It’s true that God predestines, but it is always for a purpose other than individual election to salvation. God determined that believers would be holy and conformed to the image of Christ, that they would be adopted and sons and escape His wrath, but nowhere in the Bible does it say that God decided who those believers would be.


[1] Chosen By God, R. C. Sproul Pages 154-155.

[2] Chosen By God, R. C. Sproul Pages 156.

[3] Chosen By God, R. C. Sproul Pages 156.

[4] Chosen By God, R. C. Sproul Pages 158.

Total Depravity - The T in the Calvinist TULIP

Total Depravity of Man

This tenet of Calvinism is the key to the remaining four. If the Calvinist understanding of depravity is true, then the other four points follow logically. Because of this, it is important to take the time to thoroughly refute it.

And you were dead in your trespasses and sins, in which you formerly walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, of the spirit that is now working in the sons of disobedience (Ephesians 2:1-2).

This Scripture is the basis of much Calvinistic argument. If a person is “dead” in sin, so the Calvinist contends, then the person cannot be made alive without a direct act by God. To this point, we agree. God is the one who makes the first move in saving us. The Calvinist goes on to say, however, that man is so totally depraved, he is unable to have faith. As one Calvinist says:

Regeneration precedes faith. Our nature is so corrupt, the power of sin is so great, that unless God does a supernatural work in our souls we will never choose Christ. We do not believe in order to be born again; we are born again in order that we may believe.[1]

In other words, according to the Calvinist, God saves a person, regenerates him, and makes him born again, before he has faith. There is no Scripture that verifies this conclusion specifically, so the Calvinist relies on the following logical flow to prove it.

• Unregenerate man is dead in sin.
• Being dead in sin, he can do nothing but sin.
• Faith in God is an act of obedience.
• A man in sin cannot obey, so he cannot have faith.
• God must regenerate a man in order for him to have faith.
• Therefore, regeneration precedes faith.

As in many claims that point to logic for their proof, this syllogism fails because of a faulty premise, that man, being dead in sin, can do nothing but sin. The Calvinist error comes in his incorrect definition of “dead.”

So, what does it mean to be dead in sin? Let’s explore the Scriptures to learn.

It is true that humans exhibit corruption, as Paul teaches in Romans 3:

There is none righteous, not even one;
There is none who understands,
There is none who seeks for God;
All have turned aside, together they have become useless;
There is none who does good,
There is not even one (Romans 3:10-12).

And again:

For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God (Romans 3:23).

This corruption is what has often been called original sin, a concept that most churches affirm, though many don’t agree with the extreme Calvinistic view. For example, here is the view of the Church of the Nazarene:

“We believe that original sin, or depravity, is that corruption of the nature of all the offspring of Adam by reason of which everyone is very far gone from original righteousness or the pure state of our first parents at the time of their creation, is averse to God, is without spiritual life, and inclined to evil, and that continually. … We believe that original sin differs from actual sin in that it constitutes an inherited propensity to actual sin for which no one is accountable until its divinely provided remedy is neglected or rejected.”

Although I disagree with the Nazarene view, it is interesting to see how many churches have an original sin doctrine that differs from that of the Calvinists. The Calvinists say that original sin not only breeds actual sin, it is deserving of eternal damnation. Adam sinned by choice, so somehow his sin is imputed to every person. Supposedly, he is our perfect representative, and since he actually sinned, we all actually sinned. This view is called federalism, or the federal headship of Adam.

"The chief idea of federalism is that, when Adam sinned, he sinned for all of us. His fall was our fall. When god punished Adam by taking away his original righteousness, we were all likewise punished."[2]

Therefore, original sin, according to the Calvinist, is actual sin, worthy of eternal damnation. The tiny newborn who dies before he takes his second breath is condemned to hell for all eternity, because he is the offspring of Adam. Here is Calvin, himself, saying as much,

“what will he make of those infant children who are taken from this life before they could display any such example of faith and the works of faith because of their age? The infants of Sodom and of Jerusalem had the same condition of birth and death, nor was there any disparity in their works. Why then will Christ on the last day separate them to stand some on His right and the others on His left? Who does not here adore the admirable judgment of God by which it is ordained that some are born in Jerusalem and pass thence to a better life, while Sodom, the forecourt of hell, receives the birth of others? But as Christ awards to the elect the recompense of justice, so the reprobate will receive not less fittingly the punishment of their impiety and crimes.[3]

Robert Shank eloquently rebukes this notion as follows:

Such comments as the above have provided warrant for preposterous assertions by zealous Calvinists that millions of infants will forever writhe in everlasting flames in hell – to the eternal praise and glory of God. Many “Calvinists” repudiate such assertions, but they thereby become to that degree not Calvinists, for such assertions are the inevitable corollary of Calvin’s doctrine of unconditional particular election. All such unscriptural assertions are seen as outrageous when set over against the gracious words of Jesus, “Let the little children come to me, and forbid them not, for of such is the kingdom of heaven.”[4]

This federalism view is supposedly supported by a passage in Romans chapter 5.

12 Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned— 13 for until the Law sin was in the world; but sin is not imputed when there is no law. 14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over those who had not sinned in the likeness of the offense of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come. 15 But the free gift is not like the transgression. For if by the transgression of the one the many died, much more did the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abound to the many. 16 And the gift is not like that which came through the one who sinned; for on the one hand the judgment arose from one transgression resulting in condemnation, but on the other hand the free gift arose from many transgressions resulting in justification. 17 For if by the transgression of the one, death reigned through the one, much more those who receive the abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ. 18 So then as through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men, even so through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men. 19 For as through the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, even so through the obedience of the One the many will be made righteous. 20 And the Law came in that the transgression might increase; but where sin increased, grace abounded all the more, 21 that, as sin reigned in death, even so grace might reign through righteousness to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

According to verse 12, what action brings death to all men? The key to understanding the verse is the phrase, “because all sinned.” The “because” phrase can have several meanings, and I’ll list the two that seem the most plausible:

Option 1:         “Death spread to each individual because of the sin of that individual, not because of the sin of Adam.”

                        This would mean the phrase “all sinned” is the reason death spread to all men.

Option 2:         “The fact that all sinned proves that death spread to all men because of the sin of Adam.”

                        This would mean that “all sinned” is the proof that death spread to all men.

The phrase translated “because” (eph ho) occurs in 2 Cor 5:4: "For indeed while we are in this tent, we groan, being burdened, because we do not want to be unclothed, but to be clothed, in order that what is mortal may be swallowed up by life."

The phrase “we do not want to be unclothed” is clearly the reason for the groaning, not the proof of it, giving us reason to conclude that option 1 is viable, perhaps even the only possible meaning.

So, if death spread to all men because of their own sin, how does Adam’s sin have any bearing on us? Clearly, sin entered the world through Adam’s sin, as did death.

In order to figure out the answer, we should examine the questions, “What happened when Adam sinned? What occurred at the time of the fall that had lasting impact through every generation?”

Verses 15 through 21 show parallels between the sin of Adam and the righteousness of Christ, and it is here that the Calvinist draws much of his support.

Rom 5:15  But the free gift is not like the transgression. For if by the transgression of the one the many died, much more did the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abound to the many.
Rom 5:16  The gift is not like that which came through the one who sinned; for on the one hand the judgment arose from one transgression resulting in condemnation, but on the other hand the free gift arose from many transgressions resulting in justification.
Rom 5:17  For if by the transgression of the one, death reigned through the one, much more those who receive the abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ.
Rom 5:18  So then as through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men, even so through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men.
Rom 5:19  For as through the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners, even so through the obedience of the One the many will be made righteous.
Rom 5:20  The Law came in so that the transgression would increase; but where sin increased, grace abounded all the more,
Rom 5:21  so that, as sin reigned in death, even so grace would reign through righteousness to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

Many Calvinists use verses 17 through 19 as a trump card of sorts to prove that Adam's sin resulted in death and condemnation to all, yet they use only the first part of each verse. They are quick to say that Adam's sin spread to all, but they refuse to apply the same logic to the second part, that is, the effect of the righteousness of Christ. If Adam's sin automatically resulted in death and condemnation for everyone, then the obedience of Christ must also automatically result in justification and righteousness for everyone. I don't know of any Calvinist who would affirm such a universal salvation.

The only way to maintain consistency between the two halves of each verse is to apply the context. In verse 12, Paul explains how the sin and death of Adam spread, by each person's choice. The same is true regarding those who are made righteous by Christ. They choose to follow Him, as the context of the book of Romans proves. Therefore, Calvinists wrongly use Romans chapter five to prove original sin. If it actually does prove original sin, it also proves universal salvation. The context, however, show us that it merely proves that Adam brought sin into the world. His sin was not automatically applied to everyone.

Now, back to the original Calvinist proposal. Supposedly, since man is “dead” in sin, he cannot do anything good, so he cannot have faith without being saved first. We have seen the Scriptures that show that man acts corruptly, but does that mean he is incapable of doing good? What does the Bible say?

11 “For this commandment which I command you today is not too difficult for you, nor is it out of reach. 12 “It is not in heaven, that you should say, ‘Who will go up to heaven for us to get it for us and make us hear it, that we may observe it?’ 13 “Nor is it beyond the sea, that you should say, ‘Who will cross the sea for us to get it for us and make us hear it, that we may observe it?’ 14 “But the word is very near you, in your mouth and in your heart, that you may observe it. (Deut 30:11-14)

Just because a person is dead in his sins does not mean that he is incapable of obedience. He is able to obey; he simply chooses not to at times.

What, then, does it mean to be “dead”? Calvinists wish to read into “dead in your trespasses” the following: “so completely dead in sin that you cannot even have faith unless God puts it in you without your will or knowledge.”

Here is how Dr. Sproul puts it:

"There is not an ounce of spiritual life left in them. If they are to be made alive, God must do more than offer them medicine. Dead men will not open their mouths to receive anything. Their jaws are locked in death. Rigo mortis has set in. They must be raised from the dead. They must be new creations, crafted by Christ and reborn by his Spirit."[5]

Does the passage say that? Dr. Sproul and other Calvinists are reading into the passage an idea that goes far beyond what is actually in the text. They define the word “dead” to suit their purposes. When there is lack of clarity over a word, it helps to read other Scripture to get an idea of the meaning of an unclear verse. At the very least, we can learn what the verse cannot possibly mean.

Mark 16:16: He who has believed and has been baptized shall be saved; but he who has disbelieved shall be condemned.

The Calvinist would say, “He who is saved shall believe.”

John 10:9: I am the door; if anyone enters through Me, he shall be saved, and shall go in and out, and find pasture.

The Calvinist would say, “If anyone is saved, he will enter through the door.”

Acts 16:31: And they said, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you shall be saved, you and your household.

The Calvinist would say, “If God saves you, you will believe.”

Romans 10:9-10: If you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you shall be saved; for with the heart man believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation. 

The Calvinist would say, “If God saves you, then you will believe, for God brings salvation, resulting in confession.”

The Bible directly contradicts Calvinistic thought. Throughout the Scriptures, people are called to repent and believe. If they were so dead that they could not respond, then the call would be a silly exercise. To be dead in sin simply means to be separated from God, alienated from His fellowship, and God raises us from that dead state in response to our faith to Him. He calls out for us to repent and believe, in His mercy giving us the ability to respond. Those who respond in faith are raised to spiritual life.

If a person were really dead in sin to the extreme point that the Calvinist demands, then he would also not be able to walk, eat, breathe, or even sin. But the Calvinist insists that a person who is dead is incapable of obedience or of faith; he takes the definition only as far as suits his doctrinal purposes. The Bible, however, shows us that people who are dead in sin are out of fellowship with God, dead to Him, and a call to faith may awaken them to hear and respond.

Awake, sleeper, and arise from the dead, and Christ will shine on you (Eph. 5:14).

The final Calvinist salvo in this first doctrinal tenet comes from their notion that saving faith in God can only come from God. In other words, we can have saving faith only if God grants it, and God does not grant it to everyone. They use Ephesians 2:8-9 as one of their proof texts.

For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not as a result of works, that no one should boast.

Here are some examples of Calvinists who see this passage as proving that God gives saving faith:

In English, the phrase, “and that not of yourselves” could be said to modify “grace,” “have been saved,” or “faith.” However, the Greek is clear that "faith" is the antecedent of the phrase “and that not of yourselves.”[6]

But due to the total depravity of humanity we know that no one is capable of any good thought or action, including faith. Faith is a gift from God. (Ephesians 2:8) If God had not foreordained to give the gift of faith to a person, that person would never come to faith in God.[7]

Ephesians 2:8 suggests that even our faith is a gift from God.[8]

The first quote is the strangest, for it is the Greek that proves exactly the opposite, that the gift of God is not faith, at least not in this passage. Both “grace” and “faith” are feminine gender in the Greek. The word “that” is a pronoun that refers back to a previous word, what is called an antecedent. Pronouns can have any of the three genders, masculine, feminine, or neuter, and each will have the gender that matches its antecedent. In other words, if “that” in “that not of yourselves” is supposed to refer to “faith,” it would take the feminine gender, since pivstew" (pronounced pisteos) is feminine. In fact, “that” takes the neuter gender, so it probably refers to salvation itself, the whole concept of “by grace you have been saved through faith.”

The Calvinists insist that such an allowance in the Greek language can be made, but it is made at the expense of normal interpretative disciplines. Their understanding is forced upon the Scripture because of their presuppositions as to the origin of faith. For the Calvinist, their interpretation of where faith comes from trumps normal Greek exegesis, an understanding birthed in their doctrinal system rather than from the Scriptures.

How do we know that faith is not a gift? From the same letter to the Ephesians. As Paul wrote, “In Him, you also, after listening to the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation—having also believed, you were sealed in Him with the Holy Spirit of promise” (Eph 1:13). Faith is our response to hearing the gospel. In no place does Paul indicate that faith is the result of a prior regeneration by God. He always describes it as man’s response to hearing the truth.

Therefore, based on Paul’s own words, we conclude that people who are “dead in sin” are able to respond to the gospel. The Calvinist, in contrast, concludes that man is unable to respond, but their source of authority comes from outside the Scriptures. They surmise what “dead” means based on presumed and unjustified parallels to physical death, and they force that understanding on the passage.

The Calvinist doctrine of total depravity is untrue and cannot be supported by Scripture.

[1] Chosen By God, R. C. Sproul Pages 72-73.

[2] Chosen By God, R. C. Sproul Pages 90.

[3] The Eternal Predestination of God, John Calvin, Section IV

[4] Elect in the Son, Robert Shank, Page 103.

[5] Chosen By God, R. C. Sproul Pages 115.

[6] Dr. Van Lees from Internet article at http://www.covenantofgracechurch.org/article%205.htm

[7] Michael R. Finney in an Internet article at http://www.gospeloutreach.net/unconditional_election.html

[8] John MacArthur Jr. from an Internet article at http://www.kenscustom.com/bible/election.htm

Refuting Calvinism

The majority of Christians in our church culture possess an innate belief that man is able to freely choose saving faith. Christian media, however, is dominated by theologians and preachers who believe otherwise, that God has predestined certain people to faith and eternal life while condemning others to hell by a decision wrought before mankind ever sinned. This media influence has brought about an unnecessary confusion regarding God’s sovereignty, ushering in a mindset influenced by the doctrines of John Calvin and other “Reformed” theologians. Does the Bible teach predestined salvation? Do we have free will? Are both doctrines somehow true?

Many Christians realize deep inside that Calvin’s form of predestination, which disregards faith and the will of man, seems capricious. In our hearts we know that condemning someone to hell when he has no hope to live without sin or to find the savior, is inherently unjust. Yet, Calvin’s doctrine runs rampant in the church, and many Christians throw their hands up in surrender, because ardent Calvinists twist the Scriptures to the point that many truth-seeking believers have trouble defending the simple truth of God’s word.

The generally accepted doctrine of predestination has also brought about an apathetic response to the call to evangelism. After all, if someone is predestined to be saved or condemned, it doesn’t matter if I, personally, witness to that person. Calvinist thought leads to the idea that God is going to do what He’s going to do, whether or not we speak a word of witness. Yes, Calvinists still witness, but they cannot possibly do so with the urgency that the truth demands, and their message is always tainted with falsehoods that lead people astray.

It’s also important that we learn the truth about the ways of our gracious God. He has not created humans simply to play with their robotic responses, forcing some into eternal damnation for sin they could not help but commit, that He is not a God who calls the world to repent, secretly knowing that He will force some to respond to His call while preventing everyone else from responding. Because of the tragic, even blasphemous attacks on God's character that Calvinist doctrine creates, it is important that we are able to explain Him rightly, so that the world will learn of our gracious heavenly Father and not the evil god the Calvinists propose.

I believe that God allows people to make a choice. We all possess the ability to have faith in Him even while we were still sinners. The Bible teaches free will. Yet, predestination and election are also taught in the Scriptures, though the truth of the Word does not line up with the Calvinistic understanding of these doctrines.

Over the next several days, I will posting essays that dismantle the five points of Calvinism, often called the TULIP, because each letter in that word represents one of the points. Although going through this exercise might not prepare readers for a debate with Calvinist seminarians, I hope it will give them confidence in the true doctrine of God’s gracious love and his desire that all people be saved through his wonderful sacrifice of His Son, Jesus Christ. I hope this effort brings you joy and wipes away the confusion that so many misguided theologians have smeared on the Christian landscape. God is sovereign, yes, but God is also love. Let’s see how these two wonderful attributes meld in God’s wondrous plan of salvation.

Galatians 2 and the Peter/Cephas Controversy

Many assume that the apostle Paul confronted the apostle Peter in Antioch regarding Peter’s apparent lack of straightforwardness with the gospel. It’s no wonder they think so, because the King James Version of the Bible says exactly that in Galatians 2:11-14. Yet, there are many reasons to doubt this assumption.

Here is the passage in the King James Version:

Gal 2:11  But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.

Gal 2:12  For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision.

Gal 2:13  And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation.

Gal 2:14  But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?

Now here is the same passage from the New American Standard Bible:

Gal 2:11  But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned.

Gal 2:12  For prior to the coming of certain men from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he began to withdraw and hold himself aloof, fearing the party of the circumcision.

Gal 2:13  The rest of the Jews joined him in hypocrisy, with the result that even Barnabas was carried away by their hypocrisy.

Gal 2:14  But when I saw that they were not straightforward about the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas in the presence of all, "If you, being a Jew, live like the Gentiles and not like the Jews, how is it that you compel the Gentiles to live like Jews?

The texts differ regarding the name of the person Paul confronted. Some Greek texts say that the man’s name was Cephas, not Peter, and the translators of the NASB decided that these texts were the more reliable. To many people, that difference poses no problem, because Peter was given the name Cephas by Jesus, as follows.

“He brought him to Jesus. Jesus looked at him and said, ‘You are Simon the son of John; you shall be called Cephas’ (which is translated Peter).” (John 1:42)

It’s interesting that Jesus never called Peter by that name again. Besides the John chapter one reference, the apostle Paul is the only person in Scripture to refer to the name Cephas using the Greek word for that name. One possible place is in Galatians chapter one, and it’s interesting to note that there is a difference in Greek texts here as well.

Here is the passage in the King James Version:

Gal 1:18  Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and abode with him fifteen days.

Gal 1:19  But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother.

And here it is in the New American Standard Bible

Gal 1:18  Then three years later I went up to Jerusalem to become acquainted with Cephas, and stayed with him fifteen days.

Gal 1:19  But I did not see any other of the apostles except James, the Lord's brother.

In this passage, it is clear that Paul was referring to Peter, because he indirectly refers to him as an apostle in verse 19. It seems to me that the KJV is correct in this case, and the name should be Peter.

Paul more definitely referred to Cephas using the Greek word for that name in other places:

1Co 15:3  For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures,

1Co 15:4  and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures,

1Co 15:5  and that He appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve.

Paul differentiates between Cephas and the twelve. This isn’t proof that Cephas was not part of the twelve, because Jesus easily could have appeared to one of the twelve and then to the twelve together, but the following use of Cephas casts doubt on that idea.

1Co 9:5  Do we not have a right to take along a believing wife, even as the rest of the apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas?

Here Paul puts Cephas outside of the group called “the apostles.” It is theoretically possible that Paul could have listed Peter separately from “the apostles,” but it would be unnatural to do so. It is more natural to assume that Paul was referring to a non-apostle.

We have historical evidence pointing to the idea that Cephas was not the apostle Peter. Eusebius wrote:

“And there is a story from Clement in the fifth of his Hypotyposeis in which he also says that Cephas, concerning whom Paul says: But, when Cephas came to Antioch, I resisted him to his face, was one of the seventy disciples, one who happened to have the same name as Peter the apostle.” (Eusebius. The History of The Church. Book 1. 12)

This was Clement of Alexandria, who lived from about 150 AD to 215. He likely had access to records that no longer exist, so this is historical documentation indicating that this Cephas was not Peter. Cephas was one of the seventy disciples, though not one of the apostles.

Internal evidence in the Galatians chapter two passage also indicates that Cephas could not have been Peter. Let’s look at the verses leading up to Paul’s opposition to Cephas.

Gal 2:7  But on the contrary, seeing that I had been entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been to the circumcised

Gal 2:8  (for He who effectually worked for Peter in his apostleship to the circumcised effectually worked for me also to the Gentiles),

Gal 2:9  and recognizing the grace that had been given to me, James and Cephas and John, who were reputed to be pillars, gave to me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, so that we might go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised.

If Cephas were the same person as Peter, why would Paul change his name in mid-sentence? (In this passage, there are no variations among the Greek texts. In other words, the various Greek texts all agree on the Greek words in these verses. They all use the Greek word for Peter at the same places, and they all use the Greek word for Cephas at the same places.  Where it says “Peter,” the Greek word for Peter is used in every Greek text, and where it says “Cephas,” the Greek word for Cephas is used in every Greek text.)

Also, Peter himself used the Greek word for "Peter" in his own letters to Gentiles, so why would Paul use the Aramaic form (Cephas) to Gentiles, a form they would not be familiar with? That wouldn’t make sense at all. If Paul had meant "Peter," it would make sense to use the most recognizable form of the name when writing to Gentiles, and he certainly wouldn't change from one to the other in the middle of his thought, such as in Galatians 2:7-9. The most reasonable conclusion is that Peter and Cephas are two different people.

According to this passage in Galatians 2, Cephas recognized the grace given to Paul, because Paul had been entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised as Peter had been to the circumcised. Why, then, would this fact cause Cephas (if he were really Peter) to extend the right hand of fellowship to Paul and divide their ministries (Paul one direction and Cephas the other) when it was the division itself that indicated that they ought to divide? This would have to be circular logic.

To explain this crucial point further, let’s break down this passage:

Gal 2:7 But on the contrary, seeing that I had been entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been to the circumcised
Gal 2:8 (for He who effectually worked for Peter in his apostleship to the circumcised effectually worked for me also to the Gentiles),
Gal 2:9 and recognizing the grace that had been given to me, James and Cephas and John, who were reputed to be pillars, gave to me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, so that we might go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised.

The reasons for the actions of James, Cephas, and John are underlined, and the actions themselves are italicized.

"Seeing that" indicates that James, Cephas, and John had noticed something that happened in the past. What did they notice? That Paul had been entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised and Peter to the circumcised. Those things happened at some unspecified time in the past, and these three are taking note of the events in order to decide on an action.

What is that action? To have fellowship with Paul so that he would go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised.

But that had already happened with the real Peter. He and Paul had already made the choice to divide the ministry and choose separate targets. So if Cephas is Peter, what is he using as a basis for deciding to divide the ministry and choose separate targets? The fact that he already has made that decision? That would be nonsense.

It would be like making a decision to become a farmer because you already are one. It is a senseless, circular statement.

The decision was based on something that happened in the past, so using that as a basis for an identical present decision that cannot logically be repeated by the same person proves that this Cephas cannot be Peter.

Again, Paul had already gone to the Gentiles, and Peter had already gone to the Jews, so if this Cephas is Peter, then he would be deciding something that had already occurred. This is not sensible. And since Paul changed the Greek words for the names in the very same sentence, thinking that these two people are the same would be the most illogical way to understand this passage. In fact, there is no logical reason at all to think that they are the same.

We also have proof from the book of Acts that this person in Galatians 2 could not have been the apostle Peter:

“From there they sailed to Antioch, from which they had been commended to the grace of God for the work that they had accomplished. When they had arrived and gathered the church together, they began to report all things that God had done with them and how He had opened a door of faith to the Gentiles. And they spent a long time with the disciples.

Some men came down from Judea and began teaching the brethren, "Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved." And when Paul and Barnabas had great dissension and debate with them, the brethren determined that Paul and Barnabas and some others of them should go up to Jerusalem to the apostles and elders concerning this issue. (Acts 14:26 - 15:2)

This is a perfect description of what was described by Paul in Galatians 2: There was dissension with Judaizers regarding the necessity of circumcision, it occurred in Antioch, and Barnabas was involved as well. This Acts account perfectly fits the Galatians 2 account, and there is no other event recorded in Acts that coincides with Paul’s account of a dispute in Antioch.

So what did Paul and Barnabas do about the problem? They decided to consult the apostles and elders in Jerusalem. Who was one of those apostles? Peter himself:

The apostles and the elders came together to look into this matter. After there had been much debate, Peter stood up and said to them, "Brethren, you know that in the early days God made a choice among you, that by my mouth the Gentiles would hear the word of the gospel and believe. And God, who knows the heart, testified to them giving them the Holy Spirit, just as He also did to us; and He made no distinction between us and them, cleansing their hearts by faith. Now therefore why do you put God to the test by placing upon the neck of the disciples a yoke which neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear? But we believe that we are saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, in the same way as they also are." (Acts 15:6-11)

If Cephas in Galatians 2 was Peter, it would make no sense at all for Paul to go all the way to Jerusalem to consult the very person who was causing a problem. Peter was already in Jerusalem. He wasn’t in Antioch. So it seems impossible that Peter could have been the man Paul confronted in Galatians chapter 2.

Some refer to other accounts in Acts where they believe the Galatians chapter 2 conflict might have taken place:

Act 11:22 The news about them reached the ears of the church at Jerusalem, and they sent Barnabas off to Antioch.
Act 11:23 Then when he arrived and witnessed the grace of God, he rejoiced and began to encourage them all with resolute heart to remain true to the Lord;
Act 11:24 for he was a good man, and full of the Holy Spirit and of faith. And considerable numbers were brought to the Lord.
Act 11:25 And he left for Tarsus to look for Saul;
Act 11:26 and when he had found him, he brought him to Antioch. And for an entire year they met with the church and taught considerable numbers; and the disciples were first called Christians in Antioch.
Act 11:27 Now at this time some prophets came down from Jerusalem to Antioch.
Act 11:28 One of them named Agabus stood up and began to indicate by the Spirit that there would certainly be a great famine all over the world. And this took place in the reign of Claudius.
Act 11:29 And in the proportion that any of the disciples had means, each of them determined to send a contribution for the relief of the brethren living in Judea.
Act 11:30 And this they did, sending it in charge of Barnabas and Saul to the elders.

We see the presence of both Paul and Barnabas at Antioch along with the desire to provide for the poor, so this could be the first meeting between Paul and these people and when the right hand of fellowship took place. The Galatians text (Galatians 2:1-11) might lead us to believe that the first meeting between Paul and Cephas occurred in Jerusalem (see verse 1), so the meeting might not have occurred here in Antioch at all, but there is no mention of the dissension similar to what we saw in Acts 15.

If the first meeting between Paul and Cephas actually did occur during the Acts 11 events in Antioch, the apostle Peter could not have been present. Where was Peter at this time? In Jerusalem speaking up boldly for the Gentiles. (Acts 11:2 and following) According to the beginning of chapter 12, Peter went to jail in Jerusalem at that time (Acts 12:3), and Paul and Barnabas left Antioch (Acts 13:4). So if this Cephas is Peter, and this was the first meeting (which it might not have been), then he could not have been in Antioch meeting Paul at this time.

Others claim that the argument between Paul and Peter took place during another of Paul's visits to Antioch:

Act 18:22 When he had landed at Caesarea, he went up and greeted the church, and went down to Antioch.
Act 18:23 And having spent some time there, he left and passed successively through the Galatian region and Phrygia, strengthening all the disciples.

There is no mention of any dispute here or of any visit by Peter, so why should we think that the Galatians 2 dispute took place at this time? There is no reason at all except for the fact that this is the only time Peter could have been there, which carries the presumption that the person Paul confronted in Galatians 2 was Peter, and that is the idea in dispute.

Another problem is that Peter, at the time of Acts 18, would have to completely go against what he had so boldly stood for. It would be totally contradictory for Peter to do that. In fact, throughout the book of Acts, Peter stood up for the Gentiles’ reception of the gospel. Ever since his call by God to preach to Cornelius in Acts chapter ten, Peter was unwavering in his support of unfettered access to the gospel for the Gentiles. There is no evidence in Acts that Peter ever strayed from this steadfast support.

Yet another problem with the idea that the Galatians 2 man was Peter is that Paul indicates that people who do what the confronted man did are not even true believers.

Gal 2:4 But it was because of the false brethren secretly brought in, who had sneaked in to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, in order to bring us into bondage.

Paul questioned Cephas – “How is it that you compel the Gentiles to live like Jews?” To compel someone to live like Jews is an attempt to bring people into bondage. Since Paul indicated that such people were false brethren, they weren’t true believers, so it’s reasonable to conclude that Cephas wasn’t a true believer and certainly not the same person as the apostle Peter.

Also, in Acts 15, when Peter addressed the group about the controversy in Antioch, he said the following: "Now therefore why do you put God to the test by placing upon the neck of the disciples a yoke which neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear? But we believe that we are saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, in the same way as they also are."

If Peter was the one who caused the controversy, then why would he rebuke the ones who were causing it as if he were not involved? That would be ridiculous. Obviously, the simple answer is that Peter was not Cephas. They are not the same person.

The evidence, both biblical and historical, is overwhelming that the man Paul confronted in Galatians is not the apostle Peter. That man was named Cephas, likely a Jew who sympathized with the Judaizers.

Because of Peter’s faithful defense of the Gentiles and their reception of the true gospel at every turn, it is important to make sure we do not denigrate Peter’s legacy with the false charge that he dissembled in Galatians chapter two. After the Holy Spirit indwelt him at Pentecost, he was sure and steadfast. Let us honor the truth about Peter and clear his name in the church, especially among those who have so greatly benefitted from his faithful stand for our inclusion in the faith.

How Great is the Darkness!

Jesus said, "The eye is the lamp of the body; so then if your eye is clear, your whole body will be full of light. But if your eye is bad, your whole body will be full of darkness. If then the light that is in you is darkness, how great is the darkness!" (Matthew 6:22-23)

A couple of events during the past week have brought this passage to mind. While Jesus was likely talking about the eye being the source of light and knowledge coming into a person's mind and how the gateways to the mind need to be clear and holy, it seems to me that the principle holds true for the church as well.

The gateways into the body of professing believers surely influence the way the church as a whole thinks and processes information--pastors, authors, filmmakers, and musicians write, speak, and sing about ideas and transmit their understanding of God and His word to the pew-sitters in congregations all across the world. If these eyes, these gateways of light, are clouded or blind, then those who receive their input will process skewed or erroneous information, and they will live according to faulty conclusions.

This week I was reminded of that in two very disturbing circumstances. I went to a wedding this past Saturday, and the preacher looked the groom in the eye and told him he is a sinner, and that when he sinned against his wife, he would have to repent, and when his wife, who is also a sinner, sinned against him, he needed to forgive her.

He went on to say that this sinning, repenting, and forgiving in marriage is an illustration of the gospel and how Jesus and the church function.

Wait a minute! The groom is supposed to represent Jesus, and he is a sinner? The bride is supposed to be spotless and pure, and she is a sinner? Marriage is supposed to be an illustration of a holy union, not an adulterous tryst. I wanted to stand up and ask, "What sin will he commit? Adultery? Wife beating? Child molestation? How dare you suggest such a wicked idea!"

And then they said their vows, promising fidelity, support, love, etc, all after the pastor insisted that they wouldn't keep these vows. It was sick and twisted, a slap in Jesus' face. I can't imagine how these two could speak these vows knowing that they would intentionally violate them, assuming they believed this pastor's words of darkness.

A few weeks ago I received a textbook for potential endorsement, and yesterday I had some time to look through it, a Christian worldview book for teaching children about God. Although I had some minor quibbles with the approach, the subject matter was reasonably true until I came across this line, an exhortation to Christian children:

"In the meantime, if you should happen to sin—and you will sometimes—you need to seek God’s forgiveness as soon as possible."

This is horrific. Can you imagine that this could possibly be a good way to teach children, to insist that they will sin?

Johnny, don't steal. Oh, but you will sometimes, and then you have to hurry and ask forgiveness. Don't fornicate, but you will sometimes, so be sure to ask forgiveness. Don't rape, murder, or take drugs, but since you will sometimes, be ready to ask forgiveness.

The absurdity is mind boggling. How can we avoid the accusation of madness if we command our children to do something and then tell them they won't obey our commands? How can our children look at us as anything but raving lunatics if we exhort them to holiness and then insist that they cannot achieve what we request?

And the confession for forgiveness part is also an illogical mess. What happens if they don't ask forgiveness? This is the dilemma that the anti-holiness crowd constantly runs into. On one hand, they say that 1 John 1:9 is an everyday thing to do, confess and be forgiven, but they get hung up when you ask, "What happens if a Christian doesn't confess? Are they not forgiven? Will they go to hell if they don't confess?"

Then they'll say, no they'll be fine, because all their sins have been forgiven past, present, and future. (Of course, they have no biblical proof for this faulty assertion.)

Okay, then why confess? There seems to be no need if their sins are already forgiven.

Well ... uh ... because it says to confess?

True. It does say to confess, and it says that confession brings forgiveness and complete cleansing from all unrighteousness. This is an if/then statement. If you confess, you will be forgiven. Doesn't that imply that lack of confession will mean lack of forgiveness and cleansing? If not, then why make the statement at all if forgiveness is granted no matter what? And, of course, if they're completely cleansed, I assume they'll never sin again.

And then they usually get angry or try to change the subject.

Their doctrine is ridiculous, and it's so tragic that it has become the default in church circles. Surely the eye has become a pit of blackness.

Confession in 1 John 1:9 is the confession that brings about forgiveness and salvation, and salvation brings about complete cleansing from all sin. There is no other reasonable way to interpret it.

It's frustrating and sad. The church holds on to this sinning doctrine so doggedly all the while exhorting their congregants to be holy. What a strange lot they are! Be holy, but you can't be holy. Go and sin no more, but you will sin every day. Love God with all your heart, soul, strength, and mind, but you will never be able to do that.

This is madness. This is darkness so black, the blind are truly leading the blind into a pit. This love of sin and the comforts of false security will surely cause millions to be among the crowd who call out to Jesus, "'Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?' And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity." (Matthew 7:22-23)

This is what the church today has fallen into, a completely warped view of reality, a twisted mindset that cannot even see its own clownish behavior. God help us!

(Artwork by Ed Miracle: http://www.miraclesart.com)