What

Christian leaders are saying about

this book…
TIM LAHAYE
Author of more than 50 books
including co-author of the Left Behind Series

“To suggest that the merciful, longsuffering, gracious and loving God of the Bible would
invent a dreadful doctrine like Calvinism, which would have us believe it is an act of ‘grace’
to select only certain people for heaven and, by exclusion, others for hell, comes perilously
close to blasphemy. And that is why I congratulate Dave Hunt for writing this excellent
clarification of the doctrine that has its roots more in Greek humanism, from where it
originated, than it does in Scripture. This book could well be the most important book
written in the twenty-first century for all evangelical Christians to read. It will help you know
and love the real God of the Bible who clearly says of Himself, ‘It is not My will that any
should perish but that all should come to repentance.’ Calvinism is a far cry from the God of
the Bible who loves mankind so much that He sent His only Son to save whosoever calls on
Him for mercy in the name of His resurrected Son, Jesus Christ. Every evangelical minister
should read this book. If they did, we would see a mighty revival of soul-winning passion that
would turn this world upside down as multitudes saw the real God of the Bible, not the false
God of Augustinianism and Calvinism.”

CHUCK SMITH
Pastor, Calvary Chapel Costa Mesa

“Dave Hunt has done it again. Even as his books, The Seduction of Christianity and A Woman
Rides the Beast have stirred the Christian community into taking a serious look at the
aberrant teachings of some Pentecostals and the Roman Catholic church, so now in his latest
book on Calvinism, he brings to the light the teachings of John Calvin, which are bound to
cause ripples through the entire church, and send many back to a serious study of TULIP in
light of God’s Word. He has researched the origins of the teachings of Calvinism and
thoroughly documents his findings. It is a must-read for those who are serious in their desire
to understand the influence that Calvin has had and continues to have on the Evangelical
church.”

ELMER L. TOWNS
Dean, School of Religion, Liberty University

“Dave Hunt has given exact details to show the agonizing faults of Calvinistic abuses that
most people have not considered. I would like for all of my students at Liberty University to
 read this in-depth analysis. It seems that each year Calvinism, like dandelions, comes in the
spring. Students get wrapped up in arguing the issues of Calvinism. Those students who
don’t like aggressive soul-winning use their view of Calvinism to defend their position. Those
who are aggressive soul winners attack the weaknesses of Calvinism. Very little of their
discussions are grounded in the truth of the Word of God. In the final analysis, their
arguments are like weeds, i.e., dandelions that bear no fruit. May many read this volume to
‘be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by
the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness,’ but may they be grounded in the Word of God.”

WILLIAM MACDONALD
Author of more than 80 books in 100 languages including the Believer’s Bible Commentary
and True Discipleship

“This book exposes traditional Calvinism for portraying God in a totally unscriptural manner.
Professed Calvinists will want to rethink their position when they realize the Biblical truths
that are at stake. This book will stand as a definitive work on the subject.”

DR. CHUCK MISSLER

Founder, Koinonia House

“The character of God has been totally misrepresented by our common denominational
traditions. Dave Hunt continues his intrepid commitment to revealing the truth—however
unfashionable or politically incorrect it may be deemed. Blindfold your prejudices and be
ready for a stunning and desperately needed perspective on this highly controversial area.
Here is another essential for the serious student of God’s Word.”

ARNO FROESE
Executive Director, Midnight Call Ministry • Editor, Midnight Call

“Rarely has anyone undertaken the exhaustive task of detailing and documenting the
misconception of God’s sovereign grace as has Dave Hunt. Reading this work should
convince even the most staunch Calvinist to recognize the flawed philosophical theology of
preselection as an attempt to eliminate man’s capacity to exercise his free will, which
reduces God’s sovereign love to an act of a mere dictator. This book needs to be read by
every communicator of the Gospel in defense of the fundamental principles of God’s grace.”

JOSEPH R. CHAMBERS, DD, DSL

Pastor, author, and radio host

“This incredible book by Dave Hunt is imperative in our generation of ‘class warfare.’ It is
hard to believe that the Christian world has its own system of ‘apartheid.’ That’s exactly
what hyper-Calvinism represents, and this book exposes the horror of spiritual apartheid for
what it really is. Calvinism makes our Heavenly Father look like the worst of despots and I
 join Dave in declaring Him: Not Guilty! The biblical revelation of redemption leaves no one
uninvited.”

JIM CUSTER
Right Start Ministries

“I am glad to see Dave deal with a tough subject, supply materials that many of us have not
accessed until now, and challenge the Biblical basis for TULIP.”

BOB WILKIN, PH.D.

Founder and Executive Director, Grace Evangelical Society

“Dave Hunt has given us a fascinating exposé of modern five-point Calvinism that is both
highly readable and practical. I especially enjoyed the section on perseverance and
assurance of salvation.”

HARRY BOLLBACK
Co-founder with Jack Wyrtzen of Word of Life International

“As a biblicist, I find this to be a refreshing biblical review of things which for many years
have brought confusion to believers. We’ve allowed words and ideas of men to determine
our positions. This book reminds us to listen to what the Word of God has to say.”

JOE JORDAN
Executive Director Word of Life Fellowship, Inc.

“Dave Hunt’s treatment of the age-old controversy over election and predestination in his
book, What Love is This? Calvinism’s Misrepresentation of God, is not only thought-
provoking but also brings the reader to focus on a scriptural viewpoint in this very thorny
theological issue. Many times theology is approached philosophically and not biblically, and
this approach will bring havoc in the Church. In Dave’s book, we are challenged to go back to
the Scriptures as we evaluate the workings of God on this all-important subject of salvation.
This is definitely a book that causes us to reflect on how we formulate our doctrine.”
 What Love Is This?
Third Edition

Published by The Berean Call

Copyright © 2006

ISBN-13: 978-1-928660-12-5
ISBN-10: 1-928660-12-6
Library of Congress Control Number: 2004107548

[First Edition published by Loyal Publishing

ISBN 1-929125-30-5]

Unless otherwise indicated, Scripture quotations are from

The Holy Bible, King James Version (KJV)
Used by Permission

COPYRIGHT & FAIR USE

The Publisher reserves all rights, but encourages readers to quote material from this book for
reviews or instructional purposes, provided that: the excerpt is not longer than 500 words and is
not the primary content of a work for sale; that the context and content are preserved and not
altered; and that credit is properly given to the source. For further usage guidelines, see the
Publisher’s website: www.thebereancall.org.

The Berean Call

PO Box 7019
Bend, Oregon, 97708-7019
Contents
What Christian leaders are saying about this book…
A Brief Word
1 Why This Book?
An Issue of Great Importance • Aggressive Promotion • A Challenge to Remain Silent

2 Is Biblical Understanding Reserved for an Elite?

Is Calvinism So Difficult to Understand? • Making Certain of Accuracy and Fairness •
An Appeal for Open Discussion • The Most Compelling Reason • Facing a Real
Dilemma

3 John Calvin and His Institutes

How Much Calvin in Calvinism? • How Much Catholicism in Calvinism? • Early Life and
Conversion • Calvin’s Institutes • Basic Elements: Sovereignty and Predestination •
Depravity and “Mystery”

4 Calvinism’s Surprising Catholic Connection

Augustine and the Use of Force • Augustine’s Dominant Influence • Is Calvinism
Really a Protestant Belief? • Drawing from a Polluted Stream • An Amazing
Contradiction • The Role of the Latin Vugate • The Geneva and King James Bibles and
Protestant Creeds • The New Geneva Study Bible and Reformation Truth • The
Necessity to Clarify Confusion

5 Irresistibly Imposed “Christianity”

From Constantine to Augustine • From Augustine to Calvin • Calvin’s Triumphant
Return • Tyranny in Geneva • Don’t Cross Dr. Calvin! • Irrational Behavior • Good
Intentions Gone Astray • The Hopelessness of Imposed “Godliness” • Servetus: The
Arch Heretic • The Torture and Burning of Servetus • The Failure of Attempted
Exonerations • Calvin’s Self-Justifications • Does the Christian Life Conform to
Culture?

6 Arminius, Dort, Westminster, and Five Points

Character and Conduct Comparisons • Arminius and His Teachings • The Break with
Calvinism • Arminianism and State Churches • Synods, Assemblies, Councils, and
 Confessions • The Five Arminian Points • The Growing Controversy • The Great
Synod Of Dort (Dordrecht) • Fruits of the Synod of Dort • The Westminster Assembly
• Lessons to Be Learned • Defining Calvinism

7 Total Depravity
Calvinism’s Undeniable Irrationality • Depravity Equals Inability? • What Ability Is
Needed to Receive a Gift? • Born Again Before Salvation? • The Disturbing
Consequences • Which Comes First, Salvation or Faith? • Biblical Support for Total
Depravity? • Is There a Bias at Work? • Is God Sincere? • Calvin’s Inconsistency •
Faced with a Choice

8 The Solemn Issue: God’s Character

Choice and Human Responsibility • What God Is This? • A Question not of
Sovereignty but of Character • Not a Question of Obligation • Why Does God Strive?
• Caught in a Maze of Contradictions •

9 The Truth about Human Depravity

When Does “All” Not Include “All”? • Two Conflicting Views • When Is Depravity Not
Total? • The Emperor’s Clothes Again? • When You’re Dead, Are You Dead? •
Leopard’s Spots, Man’s Skin Color—Like Sin? • “Thy Faith Hath Saved Thee” • Simple
Confusion Over Inability

10 A Distorted Sovereignty
A Commendable but Mistaken Zeal • Freedom to Rebel but Not to Repent? •
Confronting a Vital Distinction • Hear it from Calvin and Calvinists • Limiting God • An
Irrational Position • Is This the God of the Bible? • A Merciless Sovereignty

11 Sovereignty and Free Will

A Serious Contradiction • What About Ephesians 1:11? • An Important Distinction •
What a Sovereign God Cannot Do • God Can Neither Tempt Nor Be Tempted • What
God Cannot Do to Save Man • Free Will Does Not Conflict With God’s Sovereignty •
Setting the Record Straight

12 Foreknowledge and Man’s Will

Creator and Creation • God’s Continual Protection • The Problem of Evil • Why
Doesn’t God Stop Evil and Suffering? • Practical Consequences of Denying Free Will •
The Horrible Consequences of Calvinistic “Sovereignty” • Love: The Missing Ingredient
• The Failure of Attempted “Explanations” • Differentiating Foreknowledge from
Predestination • Foreknowledge as Proof • What About Man’s Will? • Confusion
Where Clarity Is Needed • What Scripture Says About Free Will • Do Outside
Influences Destroy Free Will? • Foreknowledge and Man’s Will • Augustine on Free
 Will

13 Erasmus and Luther in Debate

A Few Relevant Facts • Contradictions, Contradictions . . . • Credit Where Credit Is Due
• Erasmus of Rotterdam • The Forerunner of the Reformation • Finally, the Open
Antagonism • A Hopeless Strategy • Luther’s Provoked Response • Is the Will Really in
Bondage?

14 The Bondage of the Will?

An Awkward Duel • To What Is the Will in Bondage? • The Will Must Be Willing • A
Prejudicial Misuse of Scripture • Forcing Scripture to Say What it Doesn’t • Confusing
the Issue • More Irrelevancy •

15 Unconditional Election
Unconditional Election: The Heart of Calvinism • Calvinism’s Unbiblical View of
Sovereignty AGAIN • Does God Cause Man to Sin? • Are “Tempting” and “Testing”
Meaningless Terms? • Incapable and Predestined, Yet Accountable? • A Strained and
Unwarranted Redefinition of Words • Who Are the Elect, and Why? • Perplexing
Indeed! • Scripture and Conscience Are United Against It • What “Justice” Is This? •
Evading the Issues • No Escape by Semantics • In Summary

16 Is Salvation Available to All?

Sovereignty and Salvation • Christ Defines “Whosoever” • Illustrating a Point •
Misunderstanding a Biblical Illustration • “As Many as Were Ordained to Eternal Life
Believed” • The Context Is Clear • Predestination to Salvation—or Not? • Giving God a
Bad Name • A Strange “Mercy” and “Kindness” • Denying a Clear Contradiction •
Biblical Mercy, Kindness, and Grace

17 Foreknowledge and Predestination/Election

Perverting Predestination • The Role of Predestination in Calvinism • Where Is God’s
Love? • Distorting a Metaphor • A Simple Exegesis • The Essential Function of
Foreknowledge • Why Not Accept the Simplest Meaning? • More Redundancies and
Nonsense • A Closer Look at Election • The Five Pertinent Scriptures • Calvin’s
Fallacious Arguments • Some Important Distinctions • Ridicule and “Mystery” • What
About 2 Thessalonians 2:13?

18 Limited Atonement
Honoring God’s Love Is Heresy? • The Doctrine Clearly Stated • Key, Yet Controversial,
Even Among Calvinists • Why Aren’t All Men Saved? • Salvation Is for All • An
Unwarranted Assumption • Sense or Nonsense?
 19 Abusing God’s Word
Faith Is Essential • What About “Double Payment”? • Was “Some” of Christ’s Blood
Shed in Vain? • Redemption Through His Blood • Particular Atonement? • The Gospel
Is Personal • Changing the Meaning of “World” • Ingenious but Irrational • What
About 1 John 2:2? • To Whom Did John Write? • What About the Meaning of “The
Whole World”?

20 Understanding Pivotal Scriptures

Salvation Is Not the Subject • “Two Nations...and Two Manner of People” • What
About the Individuals? • What About Pharaoh? • “Whom He Will He Hardeneth” •
Clay, the Potter, and Vessels of Wrath • John 3:16–17 Revisited • Christ Died for All •
God Has Two Wills in Conflict? • “All Men” Means All "Classes” of Men?

21 More Pivotal Scriptures

What About 2 Peter 2:1? • Understanding 2 Peter 3:9 • Are the Elect in Danger of
Perishing? • What About 1 Timothy 4:10? • Grasping at Straws • Hiding the Truth •
God’s Infinite Love Expressed through Paul

22 Irresistible Grace
The Serious Consequences of Sovereignty Misapplied • What Love, Compassion, and
Grace Is This? • A Longsuffering God • A Foundational Misunderstanding • More
Contradictions • Irresistible Grace and the Gospel • A Classic Oxymoron • The “Two
Conflicting Wills” Theory Revisited

23 The Calvinist’s Irresolvable Problem

No Explaining Away • What Does Christ Teach? • What About God’s Love? • Was Paul
Wrong in His Passionate Concern? • What God Is This? • The Darkest Side of
Calvinism • This Is Election? • Left with Unanswered Questions

24 When Grace Isn’t Grace

God the Puppet Master • A One-Sided Emphasis • A Continuing Cover-Up • Unbiblical
and Unreasonable • Demeaning the Great Commission • Building Upon a “Dead”
Foundation • A Subtle Surrender to Materialism • Adding to the Confusion •
Irresistible Grace and Spiritual Death • Seeking an Understanding • The “Spiritually
Dead” Hear and Believe • “Limited” Irresistible Grace? • The Libel Against God Clearly
Stated

25 Grace and Human Responsibility

A Troubling Tendency • The Overwhelming Testimony of Scripture • The Calvinist’s
Best Foot Forward • The Burden of Proof • Those Who “Draw Back Unto Perdition” • Is
It All a Charade? • Except the Father Draw Him: What Does that Mean? • Eisegetical
 Illusion

26 Calvinism’s Errors Are Serious

Infant Baptism and Circumcision • Was Calvin Really the Great Exegete? • Tolerating
Calvin’s Errors • Finding the “Unavailable” Exegesis • Human Responsibility • The
Universal Thirst that Only God Can Quench • More Contradictions

27 Persuasion, the Gospel, and God

Calvinism and Evangelism • Another Favorite Verse • The Simplicity of What John Says
• Staggering Deductions • Directly Contradicting Scripture • Confusing Man’s Faith
with God’s Work • Is Faith, or Salvation, the Gift of God? • We Must Believe—God
Doesn’t Believe for Us • The Biblical Order: Faith Brings Salvation • To Whom Is
Salvation Offered? • The Serpent and Christ

28 When Is “Love” Not Love?

Did Christ Really Weep Over Jerusalem? • Disagreement in the Ranks • Contradictions,
Contradictions.... • Kinds or Aspects of Love? • Christ Is Speaking as the God of Israel •
Is There a Real Battle for Souls? • Luther’s Astonishing “Answer” • That Inescapable
Will Again! • “Where Is Boasting Then?” • Man Is Meaningless Without a Will •
Commissioned by God to Persuade Men • Paul’s Fervent Preaching and Example • The
Bottom Line • God Contrasted with False Gods

29 Perseverance of the Saints

An Endemic Uncertainty of Salvation • Disagreement on a Vital Point • Uncomfortable
with Jesus? • The Gospel: God’s Power unto Salvation

30 A Calvinist’s Honest Doubts

Enter a Troubling Uncertainty • Growing Confusion • What “Regeneration” Was This?
• A Victim of Subtle Deception? • The Impact of “Unconditional Election” • “Limited
Atonement” Adds to His Despair • “Irresistible Grace”—the Final Blow • Turning to
Calvin for Help • What “God” Is This! • Is There No Way of Escape? • “Hyper-
Calvinism?” What’s That? • Where’s the Difference? • Contradictions...and Double
Talk • Stifling a Most Troubling Thought • Calvin’s Weakness as an Apologist

31 Resting in God’s Love

The Central Issue: God’s Love • Hell: Whose Choice? • Perseverance of the Saints? •
More and More Unanswered Questions • To God Be the Glory! • Desperation—and
Enlightenment • A Forgotten Challenge • The Turning Point • Calvinism’s Last Stand •
The Final Question • Assurance for Eternity

A Final Word
Bibliography
Other Books by Dave Hunt
About The Berean Call
A Brief Word
DISCUSSIONS WITH NUMBERS of people around the world reveal that
many sincere, Bible-believing Christians are “Calvinists” only by default.
Thinking that the only choice is between Calvinism (with its presumed
doctrine of eternal security) and Arminianism (with its teaching that
salvation can be lost), and confident of Christ’s promise to keep eternally
those who believe in Him, they therefore consider themselves to be
Calvinists.
It takes only a few simple questions to discover that most Christians
are largely unaware of what John Calvin and his early followers of the
sixteenth and seventeenth centuries actually believed and practiced. Nor
do they fully understand what most of today’s leading Calvinists believe.
Although there are disputed variations of the Calvinist doctrine, among
its chief proponents (whom we quote extensively in context) there is
general agreement on certain core beliefs. Many evangelicals who think
they are Calvinists will be surprised to learn of Calvin’s belief in salvation
through infant baptism, and of his grossly un-Christian behavior, at times,
as the “Protestant Pope” of Geneva, Switzerland.
Most shocking of all, however, is Calvinism’s misrepresentation of God
who “is love.” It is our prayer that the following pages will enable readers
to examine more carefully the vital issues involved and to follow God’s
Holy Word and not man.
___________________
THE FIRST EDITION of this book was greeted by fervent opposition and
criticism from Calvinists. In this enlarged and revised edition I have
endeavored to respond to the critics.
—Dave Hunt
 1— Why This Book?
CAN YOU ANSWER some questions about Calvinism?” The query came
to me from a young man sitting with me and several others at a
restaurant in a city where I was speaking at a conference.1
“Why do you ask me?”
“We heard you were writing a book about Calvinism.”
“Yes, I am—a book, in fact, that I didn’t want to write. There are fine
Christians on both sides. The last thing I want to do is create more
controversy—but it’s a topic that really has to be faced and dealt with
thoroughly.” Glancing around the table, I was surprised at the sudden
interest reflected on each face. Everyone was listening intently.
“I had scarcely given Calvinism a thought for years. Then suddenly—or
so it seemed to me—in the last few years Calvinism has emerged as an
issue everywhere. Perhaps I’m just waking up, but it seems to me that
this peculiar doctrine is being promoted far more widely and aggressively
now than I was ever aware of in the past.”
“Our church recently added a new associate pastor to the staff—a
graduate of the Master’s College and Seminary in Southern California,”
explained the young man. “He introduces Calvinism in almost every
session in his Bible class.”
“Let me suggest how he might do it,” I responded. “He asks the class
what they think comes first, faith or regeneration. Everyone says, ‘Faith,
of course—believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved.’ Then
he challenges them, ‘But mankind is dead in trespasses and sins. How can
a dead man believe?’”
I had the young man’s total attention. “That’s it exactly! How did you
know?”
“Then he explains,” I continued, “that God has to give life sovereignly
to those who are spiritually dead before they can believe or even
understand the gospel—that regeneration must precede faith.”
“You’re right! But it seems bizarre...like having to get saved before you
can get saved!”
“The Calvinist wouldn’t put it in those precise words,” I responded,
“but it’s even a bit stranger than that. Without understanding or believing
anything about God or Christ or the Bible—because the ‘totally depraved’
supposedly can’t until they’re regenerated—the ‘elect’ are made
spiritually alive by a sovereign act of God without any desire or
cooperation on their part, and without even knowing what is happening
to them at the time.”
“That’s exactly what he’s been teaching,” added another member of
the same church. “It doesn’t make sense. I never read anything like that
in the Bible.”
“Are you the only ones who have expressed any concern?” I asked.
“Do those who thought that faith came first accept this new concept
immediately?”
“Most do. But it has caused some confusion. And a few people have
left the church.”
“No one challenges him,” I asked, “with the obvious fact that spiritual
death can’t be equated with physical death? That physically dead people
not only can’t believe but can’t sin or do anything else?”
“I guess none of us have thought of that.”
“What does the senior pastor say?”
“He doesn’t seem to know how to handle the confusion. We never
heard anything like this from the pulpit before, but now hints of Calvinism
are even finding their way into his sermons.”
The conversation went on like this for some time. Every new aspect of
Calvinism I explained was greeted with further exclamations of “Yes!
That’s exactly what we’re hearing.”
Others, from entirely different areas of the country, began to relate
their experiences. One man had recently left a church that had split over
Calvinism. The deacon board had voted that every member must sign a
Calvinistic statement of faith. Someone else came from a church whose
pastor and elders had taken a hard line against what they considered a
divisive issue and had disfellowshiped a Sunday school teacher for
influencing his junior high class with Calvinism, in spite of several
warnings. Another couple had visited a highly recommended church in a
large city near their home, pastored by a well-known Calvinist author.
“We don’t really know much about Calvinism,” my dinner companions
confessed. “But it was a strange experience. On the one hand, we had the
impression that these people felt certain they were the elect. Yet there
also seemed to be some insecurity, as though performance were a major
evidence of one’s salvation.”
As we got up to leave, a young woman who had sat through the entire
discussion in silence asked if she could have a private moment of my
time. We sat down again, and she began a tale of grief. She was a pastor’s
wife. Their lives and ministry had been happy and fruitful until her
husband and two close friends, also pastors, became interested in a new
“truth.” All three were very intellectual. As a result of reading current
Calvinist authors they had been drawn into the writings of John Calvin,
Jonathan Edwards, John Knox, and others.
Their study, taking them all the way back to Augus ne, eventually became
almost an obsession. Then each of them began to preach their new “light”
from their pulpits. A er being warned several mes to desist, they were
removed from their pastorates. Eventually, her husband began to worry
whether he was really one of the elect. The nagging ques ons grew into full-
blown doubts about his salva on. The Calvinism that had once seemed so
sa sfying began to haunt him with uncertainty. Was he one of the elect?
“You were never drawn into it?” I asked.
She shook her head. “I’m not an intellectual—which may be why it
never appealed to me. But isn’t God supposed to be a God of love? In my
simple mind it didn’t make sense that the God of the Bible didn’t love
everyone enough to want them all in heaven, that Christ hadn’t died for
everyone even though the Bible seemed to say that He had.”
Tears came to her eyes. At last she continued, “I kept trying to tell my
husband that the God he was now believing in—a God who predestined
people before they were even born to spend eternity in the Lake of Fire—
was not the God I knew and loved.”
Troubling encounters such as these became more frequent and soon
demanded deeper insight on my part into a system obviously embraced
by a larger portion of the church than I had realized. It seemed so alien to
everything I had believed about a God whose sovereignty did not diminish
His mercy and love. For my own peace of mind, I was compelled to pursue
the lengthy investigation that resulted in this book.
An Issue of Great Importance
Calvinism has never seemed biblical to me for a number of reasons
that we will come to in due order. Over the years, my considerable
objections have been discussed privately, in detail, with several friends
who are staunch Calvinists. Thankfully, in spite of our serious differences
and our inability to resolve them, there was never any loss of good will.
We remain in close friendship to this day and simply avoid this subject.
It is true that “throughout history many of the great evangelists,
missionaries, and stalwart theologians held to the...doctrines of grace
known as Calvinism.”2 R. C. Sproul declares that “the titans of classical
Christian scholarship” are Calvinists.3 The additional claim is often made
that, although many have not made it known publicly, most of today’s
leading evangelicals in America hold to some form of this doctrine. I soon
discovered that there were far more books in print promoting Calvinism
than I had ever imagined. Their number and influence are growing
rapidly.
Like John MacArthur’s Study Bible, the New Geneva Study Bible
aggressively promotes Calvinism in its marginal explanations of key
passages. It claims to present “Reformation truth.” That bold phrase
equates the Reformation with Calvinism—a proposition almost
universally accepted among evangelicals today. The question of whether
this is true, which we will deal with in the following pages, is surely one of
great importance.
The significance of our concern is given further weight by the fact that
its proponents even claim that “Calvinism is pure biblical Christianity in its
clearest and purest expression.”4 D. James Kennedy has said, “I am a
Presbyterian because I believe Presbyterianism is the purest form of
Calvinism.”5 John Piper writes, “The doctrines of grace (Total depravity,
Unconditional election, Limited atonement, Irresistible grace,
Perseverance of the saints) are the warp and woof of the biblical gospel
cherished by so many saints for centuries.”6
Wouldn’t this mean, then, that those who do not preach Calvinism do
not preach the gospel? And how could evangelicals possibly be saved who
reject the five points of Calvinism that Piper claims are “the warp and
woof of the biblical gospel”? C. H. Spurgeon, who at times contradicted
Calvinism, declared:
…those great truths, which are called Calvinism…are, I believe, the essential
doctrines of the Gospel that is in Jesus Christ. Now I do not ask whether you
 believe all this [Calvinism]. It is possible you may not. But I believe you will before
you enter heaven. I am persuaded that as God may have washed your hearts, He
will wash your brains before you enter heaven.7

Such a strong statement is impressive, coming from Charles Haddon

Spurgeon. John H. Gerstner writes, “We believe with the great Baptist
preacher, Charles Haddon Spurgeon, that Calvinism is just another name
for Christianity.”8 Again, if Calvinism is true Christianity, would that mean
that non-Calvinists are not Christians? Surely, most Calvinists would not
say so, but isn’t the implication there?
Of course, there were many Christian leaders of equal stature in the
history of the church, such as D. L. Moody, who were of the opposite
opinion. Norman F. Douty lists more than seventy Christian leaders who,
in whole or in part, opposed Calvinism (especially its doctrine of Limited
Atonement)—among them such men as Richard Baxter, John Newton,
John and Charles Wesley, John Bunyan, H. C. G. Moule, and others.9 A
study of early church history reveals that Calvinistic doctrines were
unknown during the church’s first three centuries. From his knowledge of
ecclesiastical history, Bishop Davenant, present at Dort, declares:
It may be truly affirmed that before the dispute between Augustine and Pelagius,
there was no question concerning the death of Christ, whether it was to be
extended to all mankind, or to be confined only to the elect. For the Fathers...not a
word (that I know of) occurs among them of the exclusion of any person by the
decree of God. They agree that it is actually beneficial to those only who believe,
yet they everywhere confess that Christ died in behalf of all mankind....

Augustine died in AD 429, and up to his time, at least, there is not the slightest
evidence that any Christian ever dreamed of a propitiation for the elect alone.
Even after him, the doctrine of a limited propitiation was but slowly propagated,
and for long but partially received.10

Today there is growing division on this issue, most Calvinists insisting

that Christ died only for the elect. On the other hand, IFCA International,
a group of about 700 independent evangelical churches and 1,200 pastors
(some of them Calvinists) declares in its doctrinal statement, “We believe
that the Lord Jesus Christ died on the cross for all mankind...to
accomplish the redemption of all who trust in him....”11
Spurgeon himself, so often quoted by Calvinists to support their view,
was torn between his evangelist’s heart that desired the salvation of all
and his Calvinistic beliefs. At times he seemed to reject Limited
Atonement, though he often firmly preached it. Sometimes he seemed to
contradict himself almost within the same breath:
I know there are some who think it necessary to their system of theology to limit
the merit of the blood of Jesus: if my theological system needed such limitation, I
would cast it to the winds. I cannot, I dare not, allow the thought to find lodging in
my mind, it seems so near akin to blasphemy. In Christ’s finished work I see an
ocean of merit; my plummet finds no bottom, my eye discerns no shore. There
must be sufficient efficacy in the blood of Christ, if God had so willed it to have
saved not only all in this world, but all in ten thousand worlds….Having a divine
Person for an offering, it is not consistent to conceive of limited value; bound and
measure are terms inapplicable to the divine sacrifice. The intent of the divine
purpose fixes the application of the infinite offering, but does not change it into a
finite work.12

Merit and value must apply to the effect of the Cross. If the Cross is
intended for a limited number (the elect), its merit and value are
necessarily limited. “If God had so willed it” is the key clause—which
Spurgeon clearly denied at times. On the other hand, that Spurgeon
believed salvation was available to all mankind is evident from many of
his sermons. The contradiction is clear—a fact that Calvinists are reluctant
to admit. Thus I have been accused of misrepresenting, and even
misquoting, C. H. Spurgeon. Sufficient further statements by Spurgeon
will be presented herein to enable readers to come to their own
conclusions.
Aggressive Promotion
Calvinists are increasingly insisting that their peculiar dogmas
represent the faith of “the Reformers who led the Reformation” and
should be accepted by all evangelical Christians as true Christianity, and
as the biblical expression of the gospel. With respect to that...

• There is much they stand for with which all Christians would
agree.

• There is much they stand for with which many evangelicals

think they agree because of misunderstandings, but actually do
not, which will be clarified in the following pages.

• There is much they stand for with regard to the church, Israel,
and the return of Christ to which those who believe in the
imminent rapture of the church would take strong exception.
These latter views have nothing to do with the gospel and
therefore will not be dealt with herein.
In the year 2000, the Alliance of Reformation Christians met in London
in opposition to the influence of the Toronto Blessing in England and sent
this message to evangelicals worldwide: “We therefore call upon those
who bear the label ‘evangelical’ to affirm their faith once again in
accordance with the witness of Scripture and in continuity with the
historic testimony of the church.”13 By “historic testimony of the church,”
they mean the peculiar doctrines that come from Augustine, as
interpreted and expanded by John Calvin and which were at one time
forced by a state church upon all in England and Scotland and those parts
of Europe where Calvinists were in control. Historic documentation is
provided in chapters 5 and 6.
Today’s Calvinists speak ever more earnestly and boldly about the
need for a “new Reformation,” by which they very clearly mean a revival
of Calvinism as the dominant view in Christendom. Consider some of the
resolutions that make up “The London Declaration 2000: Alliance of
Reformation Christians—A vision for biblical unity in the modern church,
‘The Evangelical Problem’”:
Under “The Question of Truth”

We therefore call upon evangelicals to return to the once-held biblical view...that

to lay claim to a particular doctrine [Calvinism] as true is not spiritual arrogance
but a biblical duty.

Under “A Vision for Reformation”

We therefore call upon evangelicals to affirm a vision for reformation which is in

accordance with the witness of Scripture and in continuity with the historic
testimony of the [Calvinist] church. Such a vision is of a church which is both
Catholic and Reformed. By “Catholic” we do not mean “Roman Catholic”... [See
Chapter 4, “Calvinism’s Surprising Catholic Connection.”] By Reformed, we mean
that we confess those doctrines about the authority of Scripture and salvation by
grace alone which our Reformed [Calvinist] forefathers reaffirmed at the time of
the Reformation [their emphasis].

Under “Four Affirmations”

Under 1: We likewise affirm that we are Augustinians in our doctrine of man and in
our doctrine of salvation. This is because we believe that Augustine and his
successors, including the [Calvinist] Reformers, faithfully reflect the Bible’s
teaching regarding the total spiritual inability of fallen man to respond to God, God
the Father’s gracious unconditional election of a people to be saved, the design of
the incarnate Son’s atoning work as intended surely and certainly to secure the
salvation of that people [the elect only], the monergistic grace of the Holy Spirit in
regeneration [without understanding or faith on man’s part], and the
perseverance of the elect. Accordingly, we also reject all forms of synergism or
Semi-Pelagianism in which man is accorded a cooperative role in his regeneration
[even to believe], e.g. Arminianism. We reject equally any softening of Augustinian
soteriology, e.g. Amyraldinianism (‘four point’ Calvinism), and any hardening of it,
e.g. Hyper-Calvinism....The notion of one Catholic and Reformed [Calvinist] Church
—one main, majestic stream of historic Christian orthodoxy
[Augustinianism/Calvinism]—is thus integral to our understanding. This notion we
affirm as true and foundational to any evangelical outlook worthy of the name.

Under 2: Reformed Catholics affirm the importance of the church and its history in
any authentic vision of God’s redemptive work in space and time. Evangelicalism
today is infected with a deadly amnesia with regard to the historic [Calvinist]
church.... We specifically reject the subjective and often disorderly spectacle of
 charismatic-style worship, with its attendant practices, such as alleged tongues-
speaking, prophecies, “slayings in the Spirit,” etc.

Under 4: We bemoan the influence among evangelicals of a pietistic

dispensationalism in which the world is considered irredeemably wicked (and thus
hardly worth the effort of influencing), and in which the only hope is supposed to
be the imminent rapture of the saints.

A Challenge to Remain Silent

With the recent upsurge of Calvinism, a number of leading Calvinists
have begun to take a far more aggressive stance in its public promotion.
Both sides, in fact, are increasingly making this issue a matter of
fellowship in the Lord, resulting in division in a number of otherwise
sound churches. In some churches, members are forbidden to promote
Calvinism even privately. In others, only Calvinists are accepted as
members. Of course, the latter has been true of pastors and mission
candidates for centuries in nearly all Presbyterian churches and even in
some Baptist churches—but now that position seems to be growing.
Almost daily I found that this subject was claiming a wider interest and
greater importance than I had ever imagined. It seemed obvious that
there was great need for further research and writing to deal with this
important issue.
As it became known that I intended to write such a book, a number of
pastors cautioned me to refrain from publicly expressing myself on this
subject. Some claimed that, out of ignorance of its true teachings, I had
already misrepresented “Reformed Doctrine.” A typical response from
the Calvinist friends to whom I sent an early manuscript for comment
went like this: “The caricatures you present and the straw men you
construct demonstrate to me that you have absolutely no understanding
of the Reformed position, and until you do I would counsel that you
refrain from putting anything in print.”14
Letters began to pour into our ministry, The Berean Call, from around
the world, many from pastors insisting that I was unqualified to address
Calvinism and urging me to seal my lips and drop my pen regarding this
topic. It was suggested that I would lose many friends and alienate myself
from leading evangelicals, most of whom were said to be convinced
Calvinists. Furthermore, who would publish such a book, since the major
publishers had brought out many books supporting the other side?
What moved me most was the concern earnestly expressed by close
friends that a book from me on this issue could cause division—the last
thing I wanted. “We can just hear it now,” several friends told me: “Here
comes Dave Hunt again; this time he’s attacking Calvinists!” That concern
weighed heavily upon me.
One must be willing to accept wise counsel. But the advice to remain
silent, though given by so many out of genuine concern, seemed, after
much prayer and soul-searching on my part, to be ill-advised. Spurgeon
called the debate over God’s sovereignty and man’s free will “a
controversy which...I believe to have been really healthy and which has
done us all a vast amount of good....”15 My heart’s desire is that this book
will be only to God’s eternal glory and to the blessing of His people.

1. Narration represents a composite of several of the author’s recent actual experiences.
2. Duane Edward Spencer, TULIP: The Five Points of Calvinism in the Light of Scripture
(Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1979), 6.
3. R. C. Sproul, Chosen by God (Carol Stream, IL: Tyndale House, 1986), 15.
4. Leonard J. Coppes, Are Five Points Enough? The Ten Points of Calvinism (Denver, CO:
self-published, 1980), xi.
5. D. James Kennedy, Why I Am a Presbyterian (Ft. Lauderdale, FL: Coral Ridge Ministries,
n. d.), 1.
6. John Piper, TULIP: The Pursuit of God’s Glory in Salvation (Minneapolis, MN: Bethlehem
Baptist Church, 2000), back cover.
7. Spurgeon’s Sermons, Vols 1 and 2, “The Peculiar Sleep of the Beloved” (Grand Rapids,
 MI: Baker Books, 1999), 48
8. John H. Gerstner, Wrongly Dividing the Word of Truth: A Critique of Dispensationalism
(Brentwood, TN: Wolgemuth and Hyatt, Publishers, Inc., 1991), 107.
9. Norman F. Douty, The Death of Christ (Irving, TX: Williams and Watrous Publishing
Company, n. d.), 136–63.
10. James Morrison, The Extent of the Atonement (London: Hamilton, Adams and Co., 1882),
114–17.
11. IFCA International, What We Believe, I: (3) b (www.ifca.org).
12. “Number One Thousand; Or, ‘Bread Enough and to Spare’”
http://www.blueletterbible.org/Comm/charles_spurgeon/sermons/1000.html.
13. “The London Declaration 2000: Alliance of Reformation Christians—a vision for biblical
unity in the modern church, ‘The Evangelical Problem.’ ”
14. Personal to Dave Hunt, dated October 19, 2000. On file.
15. Charles Haddon Spurgeon, “God’s Will and Man’s Will,” No. 442 (Newington:
Metropolitan Tabernacle, sermon delivered Sunday, March 30, 1862).
2—Is Biblical Understanding Reserved
for an Elite?
CALVINISTS EMPHASIZE that their theology rests upon solid biblical
exegesis, being “firmly based...upon the Word of God.”1 Some have gone
so far as to assert that “this teaching was held to be the truth by the
apostles,”2 and even that “Christ taught the doctrines that have come to
be known as the five points of Calvinism.”3
According to the Bible itself, however, no one should accept such
claims without verifying them from Scripture. Any doctrine claiming to be
based on the Bible must be carefully checked against the Bible—an option
open to anyone who knows God’s Word. Relying upon one supposed
biblical expert for an evaluation of the opinions of another would be
going in circles. No matter whose opinion one accepted, the end result
would be the same: one would still be held hostage to human opinion.
Each individual must personally check out all opinions directly from the
Bible. Yet I was being advised to keep silent on the basis that only those
with special qualifications were competent to check Calvinism against the
Bible, an idea that in itself contradicted Scripture.
The inhabitants of the city of Berea, though not even Christians when
Paul first preached the gospel to them, “searched the scriptures daily, [to
see] whether those things [Paul preached] were so” (Acts 17:11)—and
they were commended as “noble” for doing so. Yet leading Calvinists
insist that it requires special (and apparently lengthy) preparation for
anyone to become qualified to examine that peculiar doctrine in light of
the Bible. Why?
After all, the Bible itself declares that a “young man” can understand
its instructions and thereby “cleanse his way” (Psalm 119:9). Even a child
can know the Holy Scriptures through home instruction from a mother
and grandmother (2 Timothy 1:5; 3:15). Timothy was certainly not a
seminary-trained theologian, yet Paul considered him competent to study
and “rightly divide” God’s Word. If special expertise were required to test
Calvinism against Scripture, that would be proof enough that this peculiar
doctrine did not come from valid biblical exegesis. Anything that
enigmatic, by very definition, could not have been derived from the Bible,
which itself claims to be written for the simple:
For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not
many mighty, not many noble, are called: but God hath chosen the foolish things
of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the
world to confound the things which are mighty.... That no flesh should glory in his
presence. (1 Corinthians 1:26–29)

Is Calvinism So Difficult to Understand?

Many friends, whose obvious sincerity was appreciated, were telling
me that in spite of my quoting John Calvin directly from his writings, along
with quoting leading Calvinists of today, I was still likely to misrepresent
Calvinism because I didn’t understand it. Even after a three-hour detailed
discussion with Calvinist friends, they still told me, “You just don’t
understand Calvinism.” Then what of the claim that Calvinism is the
gospel and true Christianity? Could multitudes of mature and fruitful
evangelicals have somehow misunderstood the gospel and Christianity?
Should Calvinism remain a mystery for the common Christian? That
very fact, if true, would be additional proof that Calvinism was not
derived from the Scriptures. How could something so complicated
possibly come from that upon which every person is capable of
meditating day and night (Psalm 1:1–2)? If the essential nourishment
God’s Word provides is to be every man’s daily sustenance for spiritual
life (Deuteronomy 8:3), could Calvinism really be the biblical gospel and
biblical Christianity and yet be so difficult for the ordinary Christian to
understand?
Why should Calvinism be such a complex and apparently esoteric
subject that it would require years to comprehend? Such an attitude
could very well intimidate many into accepting this belief simply because
such a vast array of highly respected theologians and evangelical leaders
espouse it. Surely the great majority of Calvinists are ordinary Christians.
On what basis, then, without the expertise and intense study that I
apparently lacked, were they able to understand and accept it?
As for familiarizing oneself with Calvinism, there are surely more than
sufficient resources accessible to anyone genuinely interested in
consulting them. Numerous books on that subject are available, both pro
and con. The Five Points of Calvinism by Edwin H. Palmer, along with
books by R. C. Sproul, John Piper, John MacArthur, A. W. Pink, C. H.
Spurgeon, and others, are highly recommended by leading Calvinists.
Calvin’s Institutes of the Christian Religion, as well as other of his writings
and those of Augustine and John Knox, and other classics, are also readily
available. On the other side, the books by Samuel Fisk are informative.
Laurence M. Vance’s The Other Side of Calvinism is an exhaustive
treatment of more than 700 pages, with hundreds of footnotes
documenting his quotations.
Making Certain of Accuracy and Fairness
To make certain that no mistaken interpretations of the doctrines
under consideration survived in this book, a preliminary manuscript was
submitted to a number of Calvinist friends and acquaintances for their
critiques. Reading and discussing with them their valuable comments, for
which I am deeply grateful, has been an education in itself. In that
process, it became clearer than ever that Calvinists don’t agree on
everything even among themselves.
A number of critics have faulted me for not accepting the “corrections”
offered by Calvinists, which they, of course, consider necessarily to be
true. On the contrary, I have carefully considered (though not accepted)
every suggestion—even though Calvinists often contradict each other
(and even Calvin himself), and some accuse others of being “hyper-
Calvinists.” We must each arrive at our own conclusions—and this book is
about the serious differences many of us have with Calvinists over the
interpretation of key passages of Scripture.
Most Calvinists (but not all) agree upon five major points. Some insist
that there are ten or even more relevant points. Palmer suggests,
“Calvinism is not restricted to five points: it has thousands of points.”4 It’s
not likely that we can cover all those alleged points in these pages!
Palmer himself deals with only five.
There are a number of disagreements between “five-point” and “four-
point” Calvinists. For example, Lewis Sperry Chafer, founder of Dallas
Theological Seminary, called himself a “four-point” Calvinist because he
rejected Limited Atonement.5 Vance points out that “Many Baptists in the
General Association of Regular Baptist Churches are four-point
Calvinists.”6 To deny one point while accepting the other four, however,
has been called by five-point Calvinists the “blessed inconsistency.” They
are correct. We shall see that each point is a logical consequence of those
preceding it. It is not possible to be a Calvinist and hold logically and
consistently to less than all five points.
We therefore agree with the widely declared statement that one
“must hold all five points of Calvinism”7 because “The Five Points of
Calvinism all tie together. He who accepts one of the points will accept
the other points.”8 Even those who agree on all five, however, have
different ways of understanding and defending them.
Obviously, we cannot cover every variety of opinion in this book but
must stick to what the majority would accept as a fair presentation of
their beliefs. Some Calvinists accuse others of being hyper-Calvinistic, a
label that is difficult to define. We will endeavor to establish the major
Calvinist beliefs as clearly as we can.
In the further interest of accuracy, we quote extensively not only
Calvin himself but from the writings of numerous Calvinists who are
highly regarded by their colleagues. One book from which we quote a
number of times is The Potter’s Freedom by apologist James R. White,
which is endorsed by a number of today’s evangelical leaders. It is an
especially valuable resource because it was written specifically to answer
Norman Geisler’s objections to certain points of Calvinism raised in his
recent book, Chosen But Free. There should be more than sufficient
citations from authoritative sources for the reader who is willing to go to
these references to make absolutely certain that Calvinism is being fairly
presented.
An Appeal for Open Discussion
God’s foreknowledge, predes na on/elec on, human choice, God’s
sovereignty, and man’s responsibility are widely alleged to be mysteries
beyond our ability to reconcile. Therefore, some insist that these
concepts should be accepted without any attempt at understanding or
reconciling apparent conflicts. The illustration is used repeatedly that as
we approach heaven’s gate we see written above it, “Whosoever will may
come,” but once we have entered we see from the inside the words,
“Chosen in Him before the foundation of the world.” We respect the
many church leaders who continue to offer such an explanation as though
that were sufficient. There are, however, several compelling reasons for
not acquiescing to that popular position.
First of all, God intends for us to understand His Word rather than to
plead “mystery” over vital portions of it. He has given it for our learning.
Of God’s Word the psalmist said, “it is a lamp unto my feet, and a light
unto my path” (Psalms 119:105), and such it is intended to be for each of
us today. Peter acknowledged that there are “things hard to be
understood” and warned that Scripture is sometimes twisted by some,
resulting in destruction to those who do so (2 Peter 3:16). God never
suggests, however, that there is any part of His Word that we should not
attempt to understand fully. Inasmuch as many passages in Scripture are
devoted to the difficult themes we will address, we can confidently
expect that the Bible itself will clarify the issues.
Second, the history of the church from its earliest beginnings has
involved sharp differences of opinion on many vital subjects, including the
gospel itself. Numerous destructive heresies have developed and have
been vigorously opposed. Neither Christ nor His apostles considered
divergent views on the essentials of the gospel to be normal or
acceptable, but commanded the believers to “earnestly contend for the
faith which was once delivered to the saints” (Jude 3). That command
applies to us today.
Third, it hardly seems that our Lord would have us draw back from
seriously considering and understanding foreknowledge and
election/predestination, as well as man’s responsibility and how it all fits
together in God’s sovereign grace. Although we may never see the entire
body of Christ in perfect agreement, each of us is responsible to
understand these issues as clearly as each one is able, through diligent
study—and to help one another in the process.
Finally, God calls upon us to seek Him in order that we may know Him,
though His ways and His thoughts are as far above ours as “the heavens
are higher than the earth” (Isaiah 55:8–9). Surely, as we come to know
God better, we will understand His Word and His will more fully. God is
our Savior; to know Him is life eternal (John 17:3). Knowing God must
include a deepening understanding of all He has revealed to us in His
Word.
We are to live, as Christ said (quoting His own declaration as the I AM to
Israel through Moses in Deuteronomy 8:3), not “by bread alone, but by
every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God” (Matthew 4:4).
Solomon said, “Every word of God is pure” (Proverbs 30:5; emphases
added).
Then we must carefully consider and seek to understand every word.
The Most Compelling Reason
It is a general assumption that, whatever other disagreements we may
have, when it comes to the gospel of our salvation both Calvinists and
non-Calvinists are in full agreement. Some Calvinists, however, disagree,
claiming (as we have already seen) that the biblical gospel is Calvinism.
For example: “God’s plan of salvation revealed in the Scriptures consists
of what is popularly known as the Five Points of Calvinism.”9 Loraine
Boettner declares, “The great advantage of the Reformed Faith is that in
the framework of the Five Points of Calvinism it sets forth clearly what the
Bible teaches concerning the way of salvation.”10 Others insist that “if you
do not know the Five Points of Calvinism, you do not know the gospel, but
some perversion of it....”11 B. B. Warfield claimed, “Calvinism is
evangelicalism in its purest and only stable expression.”12
Such claims that the Five Points of Calvinism make up the gospel raise
the concerns about Calvinism to a new level! If much special study is
required to understand Calvinism, and if years of Bible study still leave
one ignorant on this subject, and if Calvinism is the gospel of our salvation
—then where does that leave the multitudes who think they are saved
but are ignorant of Calvinism? This question may seem divisive but it
cannot be ignored.
Another grave question is raised concerning the proclamation of the
gospel to the whole world as Christ commanded. Calvinists insist that
their doctrine does not diminish the zeal with which the gospel is to be
preached. To support this assertion, they name some of the great
preachers and missionaries who were staunch Calvinists, such as George
Whitefield, Adoniram Judson, William Carey, and others. And it is true
that, although they know that many to whom they preach are not among
the elect, some Calvinists nevertheless preach earnestly so that the elect
may hear and believe.
Certainly, however, the zeal of such men and women in bringing the
gospel to the world could not be because of their Calvinism but only in
spite of it. To believe that those who will be saved have been predestined
to salvation by God’s decree, that no others can be saved, and that the
elect must be regenerated by God’s sovereign act without the gospel or
any persuasion by any preacher, or by any faith in God on their part,
could hardly provide motivation for earnestly preaching the gospel. No
matter how the Calvinist tries to argue to the contrary, such a belief can
only lessen the zeal a reasonable person might otherwise have, to reach
the lost with the gospel of God’s grace in Christ.
Facing a Real Dilemma
The gospel that Peter and Paul and the other apostles preached was
for everyone in the audiences they faced, wherever they went. It was not
a message that only the elect could believe. Peter told Cornelius and his
family and friends, “And he [Christ] commanded us to preach unto the
people [not to a select group]...that whosoever [among the people to
whom He preached] believeth in him shall receive remission of sins” (Acts
10:42–43).
In contrast, Calvin’s gospel says that Christ died, and His blood atones,
for only the elect. Could this be the same gospel Paul preached? Paul
proclaimed to audiences, “We declare unto [all of] you glad tidings...”
(Acts 13:32). The “glad tidings” of the gospel that Paul preached echoed
what the angel of the Lord had said to the shepherds at the time of
Christ’s birth: “I bring you tidings of great joy, which shall be to all
people...” (Luke 2:10). These tidings of great joy concerned the fact that
“the Savior of the world” (Luke 2:11; John 4:42) had been born.
Calvin’s gospel, however, says that Christ is not the Savior of the world,
but only of the elect. How could that message be “tidings of great joy” to
those whom the Savior did not come to save and for whose sins He
refused to die?
Paul could and did honestly say to everyone he met, “Christ died for
you.” In complete contrast, a book on biblical counseling that we have
long recommended to readers declares, “As a reformed Christian, the
writer [author] believes that counselors must not tell any unsaved
counselee that Christ died for him, for they cannot say that. No man
knows except Christ himself who are his elect for whom he died”
(emphasis added).13
The author calls himself a “reformed Christian.” What might that
mean? Obviously, Calvin’s message of salvation for a select group does
not bring “great joy” to “all people.”
Palmer writes, “But thank God that Christ’s death was an absolute
guarantee that every single one of the elect would be saved.”14 So great
joy comes to the elect alone! As for the rest, Calvin’s doctrine that God
had predestined their damnation could hardly be “tidings of great joy”!
This is the way Calvin put it:
To many this seems a perplexing subject, because they deem it most incongruous
that of the great body of mankind some should be predestinated to salvation, and
others to destruction.... From this we infer, that all who know not that they are the
peculiar people of God, must be wretched from perpetual trepidation....15

What gospel is this that is cause for joy to only some? It cannot be the
biblical gospel that the angels announced! Because of the eternal
importance of that question for the whole world to whom Christ
commanded us to take the gospel, we are compelled to examine
Calvinism closely in light of Scripture. Could it really be true, as Arthur C.
Custance insists, that “Calvinism is the Gospel and to teach Calvinism is in
fact to preach the Gospel”?16
 Is Calvinism founded upon the plain text of Scripture? Or does it
require interpreting common words and phrases such as all, all men,
world, everyone that thirsteth, any man, and whosoever will to mean “the
elect”? Is a peculiar interpretation of Scripture required to sustain this
doctrine?
Our concern is for the defense of the character of the true God, the
God of mercy and love whose “tender mercies are over all his works”
(Psalms 145:9). The Bible declares that He is “not willing that any should
perish, but that all should come to repentance” (2 Peter 3:9); “who will
have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth”
(1 Timothy 2:4). Such is the God of the Bible, from Genesis to Revelation.
Open examination and discussion of important issues—especially the
gospel and the very nature and character of God—can only be healthy for
the body of Christ. It is my prayer that our investigation of Calvinism and
its comparison with God’s Holy Word, as expressed in the following
pages, will bring helpful and needed clarification.

1. W. J. Seaton, The Five Points of Calvinism (Carlisle, PA: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1970),
8.
2. Jimmie B. Davis, The Berea Baptist Banner, February 5, 1995, 30.
3. Mark Duncan, The Five Points of Christian Reconstruction from the Lips of Our Lord
(Edmonton, AB: Still Waters Revival Books, 1990), 10.
4. Edwin H. Palmer, foreword to the five points of calvinism (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books,
enlarged ed., 20th prtg. 1999), 1.
5. Lewis Sperry Chafer, Systematic Theology (Dallas, TX: Dallas Seminary Press, 1948),
3:184.
6. Laurence M. Vance, The Other Side of Calvinism (Pensacola, FL: Vance Publications, rev.
ed. 1999), 147.
7. Charles W. Bronson, The Extent of the Atonement (Pasadena, TX: Pilgrim Publications,
1992), 19.
8. Palmer, five points, 27.
9. Leonard J. Coppes, Are Five Points Enough? The Ten Points of Calvinism (Denver, CO:
 self-published, 1980), 55.
10. Loraine Boettner, The Reformed Faith (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed
Publishing Co., 1983), 24.
11. Fred Phelps, “The Five Points of Calvinism” (The Berea Baptist Banner, February 5, 1990),
21.
12. Benjamin B. Warfield, Calvin and Augustine, ed. Samuel G. Craig (Phillipsburg, NJ:
Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1956), 497.
13. Jay E. Adams, Competent to Counsel (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1970), 70.
14. Palmer, five points, 92.
15. John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, trans. Henry Beveridge (Grand Rapids,
MI: Wm. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1998 ed.), III: xxi, 1.
16. Arthur C. Custance, The Sovereignty of Grace (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and
Reformed Publishing Co., 1979), 302.
3—John Calvin and His Institutes
CALVINISM AND THE CONTROVERSIES surrounding it have confronted
Protestants for more than four hundred years.
Of course, the whole dispute in the church goes back long before John
Calvin, to Augustine, Pelagius, and others. Aurelius Augustinus was born
November 13, 354, at Tagaste, a small town near the eastern border of
modern Algeria. His father was a Roman official and a pagan; his mother,
Monica, a Christian. In 386, after studies in philosophy, law, and the
classics (he was greatly inspired by Plato), a year of teaching grammar,
and a brief career as a rhetorician, Augustine embraced Christianity. He
entered what was essentially the Roman Catholic Church of his day, and
established a monastery, which he moved to Hippo, Africa, upon being
appointed its bishop. Often called the father of Roman Catholicism’s
major doctrines, Augustine, as we shall see, heavily influenced later
philosophers and even exerts a strong influence among evangelicals
today, much of it through Calvinism.
Although the Roman Catholic Church had not yet assumed its present
form and power, the foundations were being laid in which Augustine
played a leading role. Already, on February 27, 380, the “Edict of the
Emperor Gratian, Valentinian II, and Theodosius I” declared:
We order those who follow this doctrine to receive the title of Catholic Christians,
but others we judge to be mad and raving and worthy of incurring the disgrace of
heretical teaching, nor are their assemblies to receive the name of churches. They
are to be punished not only by Divine retribution but also by our own measures,
which we have decided in accordance with Divine inspiration.1

Born in Britain near the end of the fourth century, Pelagius rose to
prominence after the fall of Rome in August 410 forced him to flee to
North Africa. There he came into open conflict with Augustine for his
views that there had been sinless beings before Christ and that it was
possible through human effort, aided by grace, for anyone to live above
sin. He claimed that Adam was mortal when created and that his sin did
not bring death upon mankind but affected only himself. Consequently,
infants are born in the same state Adam was in before he sinned.
Moreover, good works were essential to salvation, especially for the rich
to give their goods to the poor to help effect the moral transformation of
society, which he believed possible. He considered “forgive us our sins” to
be a prayer involving false humility and unsuitable for Christians,
inasmuch as sin is not a necessity but man’s own fault.
Semi-Pelagianism was developed a few years later by a French monk,
John Cassianus, who modified Pelagianism by denying its extreme views
on human merit and accepting the necessity of the power of the Holy
Spirit but retaining the belief that man can do good, that he can resist
God’s grace, that he must cooperate in election, does have the will to
choose between good and evil, and can lose his salvation. Those who
reject Calvinism are often accused of promoting semi-Pelagianism, which
is a broad label and often not true. Such labels can be misleading—
including the label “Calvinist,” because of the many shades and variations
of Calvinism.
Although generally recognizing that Augustine was the source of most
of what Calvin taught, Calvinists disagree among themselves over the
exact composition of this doctrine. Nor would Calvin himself agree
completely with many of his followers today. An attempt is made in the
following pages to quote those who represent the current view among
most Calvinists.
Even without the growing controversy, however, John Calvin is worthy
of study because of the enormous impact he has had, and continues to
have, in the Christian world. The Scottish Reformer, John Knox, credited
with founding the Presbyterian Church, spent several years in Geneva and
brought Calvinism to Scotland and to the Presbyterian movement. Daniel
Gerdes said, “Calvin’s labors were so highly useful to the Church of Christ,
that there is hardly any department of the Christian world to be found
that is not full of them.2 It has been said that “No man in the history of
the Church has been more admired and ridiculed, loved and hated,
blessed and cursed.”3 Vance claims that “the prodigious impact of Calvin
upon Christianity has yet to be fathomed.” He goes on to refer to
...such institutions and organizations as Calvin College, Calvin Seminary, the Calvin
Theological Journal, the International Congress on Calvin Research, the Calvin
Translation Society, the Calvin Foundation, and the H. Henry Meeter Center for
Calvin Studies, which contains over 3,000 books and 12,000 articles concerning
John Calvin. The majority of Calvin’s writings are still available today, which is quite
an exploit considering that he lived over 400 years ago. There are extant over
2,000 of Calvin’s sermons, while Calvin’s complete works occupy fifty-nine volumes
in the Corpus Reformatorum. College and seminary students at both Presbyterian
and Reformed schools have the option of taking a whole course on John Calvin.
Moreover, Calvin has the eminence of being mentioned in every dictionary,
encyclopedia, and history book, both sacred and secular.4

How Much Calvin in Calvinism?

There is an attempt by many Calvinists today to disassociate Calvin
from Calvinism, in view of its earlier origins in Augustine and the Latin
Vulgate Bible. Moreover, it was not until the Great Synod of Dort
(Dordrecht), more than fifty years after Calvin’s death, that the five points
of Calvinism were first set forth in order. Ironically, this declaration came
about only as an expression of opposition to the five points of
Arminianism. Nevertheless, this system of thought continues to be
universally known as “Calvinism.” Loraine Boettner says, “It was Calvin
who wrought out this system of theological thought with such logical
clearness and emphasis that it has ever since borne his name.”5 Where it
really came from, as we shall see in the next chapter, is admitted by
Custance who says that Augustine was “perhaps the first after Paul to
realize the Total Depravity of man.”6 Farrar agrees: “To him [Augustine]...
[is] due the exaggerated doctrine of total human depravity....”7
In spite of its long and varied origins and development, the term
“Calvinism” remains as the commonly used identification. As Engelsma
says, speaking in agreement with the overwhelming majority of Calvinists,
“It was Calvin who developed these truths, systematically and fully; and
therefore, they came to be called by his name.”8 B. B. Warfield declares,
“It was he who gave the Evangelical movement a theology.”9 Timothy
George writes that it was Calvin who “presented more clearly and more
masterfully than anyone before him the essential elements of Protestant
theology.”10 R. Tudor Jones calls Calvin’s Institutes “one of the seminal
works of Christian theology...his thinking was to be the motive force
behind revolutionary changes in several European countries.”11 Edwin H.
Palmer expresses an admiration for Calvin that seems to grow ever
stronger among his followers:
The name Calvinism has often been used, not because Calvin was the first or sole
teacher, but because after the long silence of the Middle Ages, he was the most
eloquent and systematic expositor of these truths. To the novitiate, however, it
seemed as if Calvin originated them.12

Of course, Calvinists are convinced that the Bible itself is the true
source of this religious system. C. H. Spurgeon declared, “I believe
nothing because Calvin taught it, but because I have found his teaching in
the Word of God.13 … We hold and assert again and again that the truth
which Calvin preached was the very truth which the apostle Paul had long
before written in his inspired epistles, and which is most clearly revealed
in the discourses of our blessed Lord Himself.”14
We respectfully disagree with this great preacher. Certainly, Spurgeon
had to pick and choose which of Calvin’s beliefs to embrace. In fact, as we
shall see, especially in his later years, Spurgeon often made statements
that were in direct conflict with Calvinism. His favorite sermon, the one
through which he said more souls had come to Christ than through any
other, was criticized by many Calvinists as being Arminian!
How Much Catholicism in Calvinism?
In the following pages we shall document that the wide praise heaped
upon Calvin as a great exegete is badly misplaced. He taught much that
was clearly wrong, and which many of his evangelical followers of today
either don’t know or perhaps don’t want to know. There is much serious
error contained in Calvin’s writings—infant baptism, baptismal
regeneration, reprobation for God’s pleasure, enforcing doctrine with the
secular sword, etc.
On account of such doctrines alone, Calvin’s expertise as an
outstanding exegete of God’s Word is suspect. Much of his teaching is
recognized today in Roman Catholicism. Let those evangelicals who praise
Calvin as thoroughly biblical justify, for example, the following from his
Institutes:
I believe in the Holy Catholic Church...whence flow perpetual remission of sins, and
full restoration to eternal life.15

But as it is now our purpose to discourse of the visible Church, let us learn, from
her single title of Mother, how useful, nay, how necessary the knowledge of her is,
since there is no other means of entering into life unless she conceive us in the
womb and give us birth, unless she nourish us at her breasts, and, in short, keep us
under her charge and government, until, divested of mortal flesh, we become like
the angels.... Moreover, beyond the pale of the Church no forgiveness of sins, no
salvation, can be hoped for, as Isaiah and Joel testify (Isaiah 37:32, Joel 2:32)....
Hence the abandonment of the Church is always fatal.16

Of course, by “Catholic Church” he did not mean Roman Catholic, but

the true church universal. Nowhere in Scripture, however, is the church
called “Mother” or credited with conceiving us in her womb to spiritual
life. Nor is the true church ever referred to as the means of “entering into
life” or forgiveness of sins. Calvin is simply reflecting dogmas that he
absorbed as a devout Roman Catholic during the first twenty-four years
of his life, and especially through the writings of Augustine, the greatest
of all Catholics.
As for Isaiah 37:32 and the entire book of Joel, few Bible students
would make such an application to the church. Isaiah refers to a remnant
of Israel escaping out of Mount Zion during a coming judgment, while Joel
refers to a remnant being preserved in Zion. Even if one erroneously
equated Israel with the church, these passages do not support Calvin’s
statements.
Of course, in becoming a Protestant, Calvin rejected the papacy as
representing the true church. He declared that “in declining fatal
participation in such wickedness, we run no risk of being dissevered from
the Church of Christ.”17
Nevertheless, while condemning Romanism as false, he carried over
into Protestantism much of her structure and false views, such as infant
baptism, a clergy with special powers, and efficacy of sacraments
performed only by such clergy. More of that later.
Early Life and Conversion
The man known today throughout the world as John Calvin, who is
generally credited as the founder of the system of Protestantism named
after him, was born July 10, 1509, in Noyon, France, as Jean Chauvin. His
was a devoutly religious Roman Catholic family of prominence in an
ecclesiastical town dominated by the local bishop and his assisting priests.
As secretary and legal advisor to the bishop, Jean’s father, Gerald, was an
inside participant in a corrupt, religion-based political system.
In a bit of old-fashioned and quite common nepotism, young Jean was
put on the Church payroll at the age of twelve, remaining on it for
thirteen years—until one year after his apparent conversion to Luther’s
Protestantism. From his earliest years, Jean was the beneficiary of an
ungodly partnership between the civil and religious authorities, who held
the common people in bondage—a partnership dominated by the
Church. It was a pattern that he would later implement as a “Protestant”
with even greater efficiency in Geneva, Switzerland, including church
dominance in civil affairs, and persecution and even execution of those
accused of heresy.
Upon entering the Collège de La Marche at the University of Paris,
Jean’s love of Latin was reflected in his registration as Johannes Calvinus.
There he diligently spent excessively long hours in compulsive study that
had ill effects upon his health in later years and possibly shortened his
life. He was known for his deep Catholic piety and blunt rebukes of his
friends’ morals.
Quite unexpectedly, in 1528, Jean’s father, Gerald, was
excommunicated from the Roman Catholic Church. Shortly thereafter,
Calvin’s brother, a priest, was also excommunicated for heresy. As a
result, Gerald ordered Jean/Johannes, who was studying for the
priesthood, to Orléans for the study of law.
Calvin later explained, “My father had intended me for theology from
my childhood. But [since] the law proved everywhere very lucrative for its
practitioners, the prospect suddenly made him change his mind.”18 This
new pursuit became the young man’s passion and possibly laid some of
the foundation for the legalism that was later to become so pervasive in
the system of theology that he would thereafter develop.
After earning a Bachelor of Laws in 1531 (he would later be granted a
doctorate in law), Jean—now Johannes (John)—returned to Paris,
immersed himself in a passionate study of classical literature, and
published his first piece of writing, a Latin essay on Seneca’s De
Clementia. Historian Will Durant says that John, still a devout Roman
Catholic, “seemed dedicated to humanism, when some sermons of Luther
reached him and stirred him with their audacity.”19 Secret discussions of
daring dissension soon swept Calvin into a circle of young humanist
intellectuals who were urging reform of the Church along the lines of
Luther’s bold rebellion against the Pope.
By January 1534, though not yet a full-fledged Protestant, Calvin had
become vocal enough in support of Luther’s ideas that he was forced to
flee Paris. Finding refuge in the town of Angoulême, he began to write his
voluminous classic, Institutes of the Christian Religion, and quite
remarkably finished the first and smaller edition the following year.
Boettner acknowledges:
The first [Latin] edition contained in brief outline all the essential elements of his
system, and, considering the youthfulness of the author, was a marvel of
intellectual precocity. It was later enlarged to five times the size of the original and
published in French, but never did he make any radical departure from any of the
doctrines set forth in the first edition.20

Today’s Calvinists avoid the uncomfortable fact that in all of his

voluminous writings, Calvin never tells of being born again through faith
in Christ. He considered himself to have been a Christian from the
moment of his Roman Catholic infant baptism: “…at whatever time we
are baptised, we are washed and purified once for the whole of life…we
must recall…our baptism…so as to feel certain and secure of the
remission of sins…it wipes and washes away all our defilements.”21 He
trusted in that baptism as proof that he was one of the elect22 and
denounced all who, like today’s evangelical ex-Catholics, were baptized
after believing the gospel.
Those saved out of Catholicism and baptized as believers were known
as Anabaptists and were persecuted by Catholics, Lutherans, and
Calvinists. Of such, near the time of his conversion to Luther’s
Protestantism, Calvin wrote, “One should not be content with simply
killing such people, but should burn them cruelly.”23 Calvin banished
them from Geneva in 1537.24 How could today’s born-again and baptized
former Catholics consider Calvin as one of them? They couldn’t—and
wouldn’t.
Calvin’s Institutes
In his Institutes, Calvin masterfully developed his own brand of
Christianity. It was without a doubt an expansion upon Augustinianism
and was heavily influenced by the Latin Vulgate—the official Bible of the
Roman Catholic Church and the one Calvin had long studied in its original
Latin. The Institutes, arising from these two primary sources, has
influenced succeeding generations to an extent far beyond anything its
young author could have imagined at the time.
Most of those today, including evangelical leaders who hold Calvin in
great esteem, are not aware that they have been captivated by the
writings of a devout Roman Catholic, newly converted to Luther’s
Protestantism, who had broken with Rome only a year before.
Oddly, Calvin kept himself on the payroll of the Roman Catholic Church
for nearly a year after he claimed to have been miraculously delivered
from the “deep slough” of “obstinate addiction to the superstitions of the
papacy.”25 Not until May 4, 1534, did he return to his hometown of
Noyon to resign from the Bishop’s employ, where he was arrested,
imprisoned, managed to escape, and fled.26 Although he was on the run
and changing his place of residence, Calvin finished his original Institutes
in August 1535. The first edition was published in March 1536.27
By any standard, this young man was far from mature in the Christian
faith. Calvin himself said, “I was greatly astonished that, before a year
passed [after he left the Roman church], all those who had some desire
for pure doctrine betook themselves to me in order to learn, although I
myself had done little more than begin” (emphasis added).28
Unquestionably, his Institutes could not possibly have come from a
deep and fully developed evangelical understanding of Scripture. Instead,
they came from the energetic enthusiasm of a recent law graduate and
fervent student of philosophy and religion, a young zealot devoted to
Augustine and a newly adopted cause. Durant says:
 [As] a lad of twenty-six, he completed the most eloquent, fervent, lucid, logical,
influential, and terrible work in all the literature of the religious revolution.... He
carried into theology and ethics the logic, precision, and severity of Justinian’s
Institutes and gave his own masterpiece a similar name.29

Commendably, like Luther and the other Reformers, Calvin was

determined that Scripture would be his sole authority. Early in the
Institutes he laid down that foundation, affirming that “if we look at it
[the Bible] with clear eyes and unbiased judgment, it will forthwith
present itself with a divine majesty which will subdue our presumptuous
opposition and force us to do it homage.”30
Calvin revered God’s Word as so far surpassing anything man had ever
or could ever produce that “compared with its energetic influence, the
beauties of rhetoricians and philosophers will almost entirely disappear;
so that it is easy to perceive something divine in the sacred
Scriptures....”31 No one can question Calvin’s zeal to follow the Bible, or
his sincere conviction that what he conceived and taught was true to
God’s Word. Nevertheless, just as the Bereans searched the Scriptures
daily to determine whether Paul’s teaching was true to God’s Word, so
we must do with Calvin’s teaching.
At the time of writing his Institutes, Calvin, far from being an apostle
like Paul, was at best a brand-new convert. Therefore, in writing the
Institutes, Calvin sought, with his brilliant legal mind, to make up for what
he lacked in spiritual maturity and guidance of the Holy Spirit. Despite his
natural intelligence, however, this young zealot seemed blind to the fact
that the partnership he later forged in Geneva between church and state
(as Luther also did) was one of Roman Catholicism’s major wrongs all over
again, and the very antithesis of Christ’s life and teaching. The remnants
of that error still plague Europe today in the form of state churches.
Basic Elements: Sovereignty and Predestination
A basic foundation of Calvin’s religious system was an extremist view
of God’s sovereignty that denied the human will and considered the
church to be God’s kingdom on earth—both views inspired by Augustine’s
writings. Verduin writes of Augustine, “Here we have an early
representation of the notion that the Church of Christ was intended by its
Founder to enter into a situation radically different from the one depicted
in the New Testament.... This idea set forth by Augustine...led to all sorts
of theological absurdities.”32
Augustine taught that foreknowledge was the same as predestination:
“Consequently, sometimes the same predestination is signified also under
the name of foreknowledge.”33 Thus, God’s foreknowledge causes future
events. Interestingly, R. C. Sproul writes that “virtually nothing in John
Calvin’s view of predestination...was not first in Martin Luther, and before
Luther in Augustine.”34 Calvin saw God as the author of every event,
including all sin:
If God merely foresaw human events, and did not also arrange and dispose of
them at his pleasure, there might be room for agitating the question, how far his
foreknowledge amounts to necessity; but since...He has decreed that they are so
to happen...it is clear that all events take place by his sovereign appointment.35

R. C. Sproul states plainly, “God wills all things that come to pass…God
created sin.”36 Out of this extreme view of God’s sovereignty came
Calvin’s understanding of predestination. According to him (following the
teaching of Augustine), in eternity past God decided to save only a
fraction of the human race and consigned the rest to eternal torment—
simply because it pleased Him to do so:
Those, therefore, whom God passes by he reprobates, and that for no other cause
but because he is pleased to exclude them from the inheritance which he
predestines to his children....37

But if all whom the Lord predestines to death are naturally liable to sentence of
death, of what injustice, pray, do they complain...because by his eternal
providence they were before their birth doomed to perpetual destruction...what
 will they be able to mutter against this defense?38

Of this no other cause can be adduced than reprobation, which is hidden in the
secret counsel of God.39 Now since the arrangement of all things is in the hand of
God...He arranges... that individuals are born, who are doomed from the womb to
certain death, and are to glorify him by their destruction....40

God, according to the good pleasure of his will, without any regard to merit, elects
those whom he chooses for sons, while he rejects and reprobates others.... It is
right for him to show by punishing that he is a just judge....Here the words of
Augus ne most admirably apply.... When other vessels are made unto dishonor, it
must be imputed not to injus ce, but to judgment.41

In his Institutes, Calvin emphasizes sovereignty but scarcely mentions

God’s love for sinners. Luther, too, was convinced that God, by His own
sovereign choice and independent of anything in man, had from eternity
past determined whom He would save and whom He would damn. Calvin
(like Augustine and most Calvinists today) said God could foresee the
future only because He had willed it.42 Here we have the horrible doctrine
of reprobation from Calvin’s own pen, echoing once again his mentor,
Augustine:
We say, then that Scripture clearly proves this much, that God by his eternal and
immutable counsel determined once for all those whom it was his pleasure one
day to admit to salvation and those whom, on the other hand, it was his pleasure
to doom to destruction. We maintain that this counsel as regards the elect is
founded on his free mercy, without any respect to human worth, while those
whom he dooms to destruction are excluded from access to life by a just and
blameless…incomprehensible judgment.... By excluding the reprobate…he by these
marks in a manner discloses the judgment which awaits them.43

Depravity and “Mystery”

God’s mercy as Calvin understood it was very limited. He majors upon
God’s justice; unquestionably, God would be just in damning the entire
human race. The real question, however, is whether God who is love
would neglect to make salvation available to anyone—much less
predestine to damnation multitudes whom He could save if He so desired.
The Bible clearly declares God’s love for all mankind and His desire that all
should be saved. It is in defense of God’s love and character that we
propose to test Calvinism against God’s Word.
According to Calvin, rather than salvation depending upon whether a
person freely believed the gospel, it depended upon whether God had
predestined him to salvation. No one could believe unto salvation without
God regenerating and then producing in those whom He had chosen the
faith to believe. This conclusion followed logically from Calvin’s extreme
view of human depravity, which he laid out in his first writings:
The mind of man is so completely alienated from the righteousness of God that it
conceives, desires, and undertakes everything that is impious, perverse, base,
impure, and flagitious. His heart is so thoroughly infected by the poison of sin that
it cannot produce anything but what is corrupt; and if at any time men do anything
apparently good, yet the mind always remains involved in hypocrisy and deceit,
and the heart enslaved by its inward perversity.44

By Total Depravity, Calvinism means total inability. Left to themselves,

all men not only do not seek God but are totally unable to seek Him,
much less to believe in Jesus Christ to the saving of their souls. As a
consequence of this total inability, God causes some to believe just as He
causes all to sin. We must then conclude that God, who is love, doesn’t
love all men enough to rescue them from eternal punishment but
reserves His love for a select group called the elect.
Some Calvinists attempt to deny that Calvin taught that God decreed
the damnation of the lost from whom He withheld the Irresistible Grace
that He bestowed upon the elect. Instead, they say that He simply “leaves
the non-elect in his just judgment to their own wickedness and
obduracy.”45
Like Augustine, however, Calvin says it both ways. Clearly, to allow
anyone whom God could rescue to go to hell (no matter how much they
deserved it) is the same as consigning them to that fate, which Calvin
called “reprobation.” Nor is there any question that, through Calvinism’s
Irresistible Grace, God could save the entire human race if He desired to
do so. Surely, Infinite Love would not allow those loved to suffer eternal
torment—yet God, according to Calvinism, is pleased to damn billions.
Such teaching misrepresents the God of the Bible, as we shall document
from Scripture.
In the final analysis, no rationalization can explain away the bluntness
of Calvin’s language—that some were by God’s “pleasure [in] his eternal
providence...before their birth doomed to perpetual destruction....” This
sovereign consigning of some to bliss and others to torment was a display
of God’s power that would, according to Calvin, “promote our admiration
of His glory.”46
Even non-Christians find it a shocking doctrine that God is glorified in
predestinating some to salvation and others to damnation, though there
is no difference in merit between the saved and lost. That God would
leave anyone to eternal torment who could be rescued, however, would
demean God, since to do so is repugnant to the conscience and
compassion that God has placed within all mankind!
Calvin himself admitted that this doctrine was repulsive to intelligent
reason. As in Roman Catholicism, Calvin sought to escape the obvious
contradictions in his system by pleading “mystery”:

Paul...rising to the sublime mystery of predestination....47

How sinful it is to insist on knowing the causes of the divine will, since it is itself,
and justly ought to be, the cause of all that exists.... Therefore, when it is asked
why the Lord did so, we must answer, because he pleased.... Of this no other cause
can be adduced than reprobation, which is hidden in the secret counsel of God.48

Calvin claims to derive from the Bible the teaching that God, to His
glory, predestined vast multitudes to eternal damnation without allowing
them any choice. In fact, while he was still a Roman Catholic he had
doubtless already come to such a conclusion from his immersion in the
writings of Augustine and the official (and badly corrupted) Roman
Catholic Bible, the Latin Vulgate.
Spurgeon, though a Calvinist (whom Calvinists love to quote in their
support) who at times confirmed Limited Atonement, was unable to
escape his God-given conscience. His evangelist’s heart often betrayed
itself in statements expressing a compassion for the lost and a desire for
their salvation—a compassion that contradicted the Calvinism he
preached at other times. For example:
As it is my wish [and] your wish…so it is God’s wish that all men should be saved…
he is no less benevolent than we are.49

It is impossible to reconcile that statement with the doctrine of Limited

Atonement, which Spurgeon at other times affirmed. It is irrational to say
that God sincerely desires the salvation of all, yet sent His Son to die for
only some. But this, as we shall see, is just one of many contradictions in
which Calvinism traps its adherents.

1. Sidney Z. Ehler and John B. Morrall, Church and State Through the Centuries: A
Collection of Historic Documents and Commentaries (London, 1954) 7.
2. Cited in Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church (New York: Charles Scribner, 1910;
Grand Rapids, MI: Wm B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., reprint 1959), 8:281.
3. Georgia Harkness, John Calvin: The Man and His Ethics (Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press,
1958), 3.
4. Laurence M. Vance, The Other Side of Calvinism (Pensacola, FL; Vance Publications, rev.
ed. 1999), 69–70.
5. Loraine Boettner, The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination (Philipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian
and Reformed Publishing Co., 1932), 3–4.
6. Arthur C. Custance, The Sovereignty of Grace (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and
Reformed Publishing Co., 1979), 18.
 7. Frederic W. Farrar, History of Interpretation (New York: E. P. Dutton and Co., 1886), 24.
8. David J. Engelsma, A Defense of Calvinism as the Gospel (The Evangelism Committee,
Protestant Reformed Church, n. d.), 22.
9. Benjamin B. Warfield, Calvin and Augustine, ed. Samuel G. Craig (Phillipsburg, NJ:
Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1956), 22.
10. Timothy George, Theology of the Reformers (Nashville, TN: Broadman Press, 1988), 179.
11. R. Tudor Jones, The Great Reformation (Downer’s Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, n. d.),
133.
12. Edwin H. Palmer, foreword to the five points of calvinism (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books,
enlarged ed., 20th prtg. 1999), 2.
13. Charles Haddon Spurgeon, Autobiography of Charles H. Spurgeon (Philadelphia, PA:
American Baptist Society, n. d.), 44:402.
14. Spurgeon, Autobiography, 47:398.
15. John Calvin, “Method and Arrangement,” in Institutes of the Christian Religion, trans.
Henry Beveridge (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1998 ed.), 29.
16. Ibid., IV: i, 4.
17. Ibid., IV: ii, 2.
18. William J. Bouwsma, John Calvin: A Sixteenth Century Portrait (United Kingdom: Oxford
University Press, 1988), 10.
19. Will Durant, “The Reformation,” Pt. VI of The Story of Civilization (New York: Simon and
Schuster, 1957), 460.
20. Boettner, Reformed, 403.
21. Calvin, Institutes, IV: xv, 3.
22. Ibid., 1–6; xvi, 24, etc.
23. Roland Bainton, Michel Servet, heretique et martyr (Geneva: Iroz 1953), 152-153, quoting
letter of February 26, 1533, now lost.
24. Bernard Cottret, Calvin: A Biography (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans, 2000),
129; Calvin, Institutes, IV: xv, 16; IV: xvi, 31.
25. John Calvin, Commentary on Psalms—Volume 1, Author’s Preface,
www.cal.org/c/calvin/comment3/comm_vol08/htm/TOC.htm.
26. J. D. Douglas, Who’s Who In Christian History, 128–29; cited in Henry R. Pike, The Other
Side of John Calvin (Head to Heart, n. d.), 9–10. See also Alister E. McGrath, A Life of John
Calvin (Cambridge, MA: Blackwell Publishers, 1990), 73; and Jones, Reformation, 127.
27. Jones, Reformation, 127.
28. Calvin, Commentary on Psalms, Preface.
29. Durant, “Reformation,” VI: Civilization, 459–60.
30. Calvin, Institutes, I:vii,4.
31. Ibid., viii,1.
32. Leonard Verduin, The Reformers and Their Stepchildren (Sarasota, FL: Christian Hymnary
Publishers, 1991), 66.
33. Augustine, On the Gift of Perseverance, chapter 47,
http://whitefield.freeservices.com/augustine06.html.
34. R. C. Sproul, Grace Unknown (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1997), 189.
35. Calvin, Institutes, III: xxiii, 6.
36. R. C. Sproul, Jr., Almighty Over All (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1999), 54.
37. Calvin, Institutes, III: xxiii, 1.
38. Ibid., 3.
39. Ibid., 4.
40. Ibid., 6.
41. Ibid., 10-11.
42. Ibid., xxi–xxii.
43. Ibid., xxi 7.
44. Ibid., II: v,19.
45. Canons of Dort (Dordrecht, Holland, 1619), 1,6.
46. Calvin, Institutes, III: xxi, 1.
47. Ibid., II: xii, 5.
48. Ibid., III: xxiii, 2,4.
49. C. H. Spurgeon, Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit, Vol. 26:49–52.
4—Calvinism’s Surprising Catholic
Connection
THERE IS NO QUESTION that Calvin imposed upon the Bible certain
erroneous interpretations from his Roman Catholic background. Many
leading Calvinists agree that the writings of Augustine were the actual
source of most of what is known as Calvinism today. Calvinists David
Steele and Curtis Thomas point out that “The basic doctrines of the
Calvinistic position had been vigorously defended by Augustine against
Pelagius during the fifth century.”1
In his eye-opening book, The Other Side of Calvinism, Laurence M.
Vance thoroughly documents that “John Calvin did not originate the
doctrines that bear his name....”2 Vance quotes numerous well-known
Calvinists to this effect. For example, Kenneth G. Talbot and W. Gary
Crampton write, “The system of doctrine which bears the name of John
Calvin was in no way originated by him....”3 B. B. Warfield declared, “The
system of doctrine taught by Calvin is just the Augustinianism common to
the whole body of the Reformers.”4 Thus the debt that the creeds coming
out of the Reformation owe to Augustine is also acknowledged. This is not
surprising in view of the fact that most of the Reformers had been part of
the Roman Catholic Church, of which Augustine was one of the most
highly regarded “saints.” John Piper acknowledges that Augustine was the
major influence upon both Calvin and Luther, who continued to revere
him and his doctrines even after they broke away from Roman
Catholicism.5
C. H. Spurgeon admi ed that “perhaps Calvin himself derived it
[Calvinism] mainly from the wri ngs of Augus ne.”6 Alvin L. Baker wrote,
“There is hardly a doctrine of Calvin that does not bear the marks of
Augus ne’s influence.”7 For example, the following from Augus ne
sounds like an echo reverbera ng through the wri ngs of Calvin:
Even as he has appointed them to be regenerated...whom he predestinated to
everlasting life, as the most merciful bestower of grace, whilst to those whom he
has predestinated to eternal death, he is also the most righteous awarder of
punishment.8

C. Gregg Singer said, “The main features of Calvin’s theology are found
in the writings of St. Augustine to such an extent that many theologians
regard Calvinism as a more fully developed form of Augustinianism.”9
Such statements are staggering declarations in view of the undisputed
fact that, as Vance points out, the Roman Catholic Church itself has a
better claim on Augustine than do the Calvinists.10 Calvin himself said:
Augustine is so wholly with me, that if I wished to write a confession of my faith, I
could do so with all fulness and satisfaction to myself out of his writings.”11

Augustine and the Use of Force

The fourth century Donatists believed that the church should be a pure
communion of true believers who demonstrated the truth of the gospel
in their lives. They abhorred the apostasy that had come into the church
when Constantine wedded Christianity to paganism in order to unify the
empire. Compromising clergy were “evil priests working hand in glove
with the kings of the earth, who show that they have no king but Caesar.”
To the Donatists, the church was a “small body of saved surrounded by
the unregenerate mass.”12 This is, of course, the biblical view.
Augustine, on the other hand, saw the church of his day as a mixture
of believers and unbelievers, in which purity and evil should be allowed to
exist side by side for the sake of unity. He used the power of the state to
compel church attendance (as Calvin also would 1,200 years later):
“Whoever was not found within the Church was not asked the reason,
but was to be corrected and converted....”13 Calvin followed his mentor
Augustine in enforcing church attendance and participation in the
sacraments by threats (and worse) against the citizens of Geneva.
Augustine “identified the Donatists as heretics...who could be subjected
to imperial legislation [and force] in exactly the same way as other
criminals and misbelievers, including poisoners and pagans.”14 Frend says
of Augustine, “The questing, sensitive youth had become the father of the
inquisition.”15
Though he preferred persuasion if possible, Augustine supported
military force against those who were rebaptized as believers after
conversion to Christ and for other alleged heretics. In his controversy with
the Donatists, using a distorted and un-Christian interpretation of Luke
14:23,16 Augustine declared:
Why therefore should not the Church use force in compelling her lost sons to
return?... The Lord Himself said, “Go out into the highways and hedges and compel
them to come in....” Wherefore is the power which the Church has
received...through the religious character and faith of kings...the instrument by
which those who are found in the highways and hedges—that is, in heresies and
schisms—are compelled to come in, and let them not find fault with being
compelled.17

Sadly, Calvin put into effect in Geneva the very principles of

punishment, coercion, and death that Augustine advocated and that the
Roman Catholic Church followed consistently for centuries. Henry H.
Milman writes: “Augustinianism was worked up into a still more rigid and
uncompromising system by the severe intellect of Calvin.”18 And he
justified himself by Augustine’s erroneous interpretation of Luke 14:23.
How could any who today hail Calvin as a great exegete accept such
abuse of this passage?
Compel? Isn’t that God’s job through Unconditional Election and
Irresistible Grace? Compel those for whom Christ didn’t die and whom
God has predestined to eternal torment? This verse refutes Calvinism no
matter how it is interpreted!
Augustine’s Dominant Influence
There is no question as to the important role Augustine played in
molding Calvin’s thinking, theology, and actions. This is particularly true
concerning the key foundations of Calvinism. Warfield refers to Calvin and
Augustine as “two extraordinarily gifted men [who] tower like pyramids
over the scene of history.”19 Calvin’s Institutes of the Christian Religion
make repeated favorable references to Augustine, frequently citing his
writings as authoritative and using the expression, “Confirmed by the
authority of Augustine.”20 Calvin often credits Augustine with having
formulated key concepts, which he then expounds in his Institutes. The
following are but a very small sampling of such references:

• “We have come into the way of faith,” says Augustine: “Let us
constantly adhere to it....”21

• The truth of God is too powerful, both here and everywhere,

to dread the slanders of the ungodly, as Augustine powerfully
maintains.... Augustine disguises not that...he was often
charged with preaching the doctrine of predestination too
freely, but...he abundantly refutes the charge.... For it has been
shrewdly observed by Augustine (De Genesi ad litteram, Lib V)
that we can safely follow Scripture....22

• For Augustine, rightly expounding this passage, says....23

• I say with Augustine, that the Lord has created those who, as
he certainly foreknew, were to go to destruction, and he did so
because he so willed.24

• If your mind is troubled, decline not to embrace the counsel of

Augustine....25
 • I will not hesitate, therefore, simply to confess with Augustine
that...those things will certainly happen which he [God] has
foreseen [and] that the destruction [of the non-elect]
consequent upon predestination is also most just.26

• Augustine, in two passages in particular, gives a [favorable]

portraiture of the form of ancient monasticism. [Calvin then
proceeds to quote Augustine’s commendation of the early
monks.]27

• Here the words of Augustine most admirably apply....28

• This is a faithful saying from Augustine; but because his words

will perhaps have more authority than mine, let us adduce the
following passage from his treatise....29

• Wherefore, Augustine not undeservedly orders such, as

senseless teachers or sinister and ill-omened prophets, to retire
from the Church. 30
We could multiply many times over the above examples of Augustine’s
influence upon Calvin from the scores of times Calvin quotes extensively
from Augustine’s writings. Leading Calvinists admit that Calvin’s basic
beliefs were already formed while he was still a devout Roman Catholic,
through the writings of Augustine—an influence that remained with him
throughout his life.
Augustinian teachings that Calvin presented in his Institutes included
the sovereignty that made God the cause of all (including sin), the
predestination of some to salvation and of others to damnation, election
and reprobation, faith as an irresistible gift from God—in fact, the key
concepts at the heart of Calvinism.
We search in vain for evidence that Calvin ever disapproved of any of
Augustine’s heresies. Calvinist Richard A. Muller admits, “John Calvin was
part of a long line of thinkers who based their doctrine of predestination
on the Augustinian interpretation of St. Paul.”31 In each expanded edition
of his Institutes, Calvin quotes and relies upon Augustine more than ever.
Is Calvinism Really a Protestant Belief?
That many prominent evangelicals today are still under the spell of
Augustine is evident—and astonishing, considering his numerous
heresies. Norm Geisler has said, “St. Augustine was one of the greatest
Christian thinkers of all time.”32 Yet Augustine said, “I should not believe
the gospel unless I were moved to do so by the authority of the [Catholic ]
Church.”33 That statement was quoted with great satisfaction by Pope
John Paul II in his 1986 celebration of the 1600th anniversary of
Augustine’s conversion. The Pope went on to say:
Augustine’s legacy...is the theological methods to which he remained absolutely
faithful...full adherence to the authority of the faith...revealed through Scripture,
Tradition and the Church.... Likewise the profound sense of mystery—“for it is
better,” he exclaims, “to have a faithful ignorance than a presumptuous
knowledge....” I express once again my fervent desire...that the authoritative
teaching of such a great doctor and pastor may flourish ever more happily in the
Church....34

In my debate with him, James White claims that “Calvin refuted this
very passage in Institutes, and any fair reading of Augustine’s own
writings disproves this misrepresentation by Hunt.”35 In fact, Calvin
acknowledged the authenticity of the statement and attempted to
defend it as legitimate reasoning for those who had not the assurance of
faith by the Holy Spirit.36
Vance provides numerous astonishing quotations from Calvinists
praising Augustine: “One of the greatest theological and philosophical
minds that God has ever so seen fit to give to His church.”37 “The greatest
Christian since New Testament times...greatest man that ever wrote
Latin.”38 “[His] labors and writings, more than those of any other man in
the age in which he lived, contributed to the promotion of sound doctrine
and the revival of true religion.”39
Warfield adds, “Augustine determined for all time the doctrine of
grace.”40 Yet he [Augustine] believed that grace came through the Roman
Catholic sacraments. That Calvinists shower such praise upon Augustine
makes it easier to comprehend why they heap the same praise on Calvin.
As for the formation of Roman Catholicism’s doctrines and practices,
Augustine’s influence was the greatest in history. Vance reminds us that
Augustine was “one of Catholicism’s original four ‘Doctors of the Church’
[with] a feast day [dedicated to him] in the Catholic Church on August 28,
the day of his death.”41 Pope John Paul II has called Augustine “the
common father of our Christian civilization.”42 William P. Grady, on the
other hand, writes, “The deluded Augustine (354–430) went so far as to
announce (through his book, The City of God) that Rome had been
privileged to usher in the millennial kingdom (otherwise known as the
‘Dark Ages’).”43
Drawing from a Polluted Stream
Sir Robert Anderson reminds us that “the Roman [Catholic] Church was
molded by Augustine into the form it has ever since maintained. Of all the
errors that later centuries developed in the teachings of the church,
scarcely one cannot be found in embryo in his writings.”44 Those errors
include infant baptism for regeneration (infants who die unbaptized are
damned), the necessity of baptism for the remission of sins (martyrdom,
as in Islam, does the same), purgatory, salvation in the Church alone
through its sacraments, and persecution of those who reject Catholic
dogmas. Augustine also fathered acceptance of the Apocrypha (which he
admitted even the Jews rejected), allegorical interpretation of the Bible
(thus the creation account, the six days, and other details in Genesis are
not necessarily literal), and rejection of the literal personal reign of Christ
on earth for a thousand years (we are now supposedly in the millennial
reign of Christ with the Church reigning and the devil presently bound).
Augustine insists that Satan is now “bound” on the basis that “even
now men are, and doubtless to the end of the world shall be, converted
to the faith from the unbelief in which he [Satan] held them.” That he
views the promised binding of Satan in the “bottomless pit” (Revelation
20:1–3) allegorically is clear. Amazingly, Satan “is bound in each instance
in which he is spoiled of one of his goods [i.e., someone believes in
Christ].” And even more amazing, “the abyss in which he is shut up” is
somehow construed by Augustine to be “in the depths” of Christ-
rejecters’ “blind hearts.” It is thus that Satan is continually shut up as in
an abyss.45
Augustine doesn’t attempt to explain how he arrived at such an
astonishing idea, much less how one abyss could exist in millions of hearts
or how, being “bound” there, Satan would still be free to blind those
within whose “hearts” he is supposedly bound (2 Corinthians 4:4). Nor
does he explain how or why, in spite of Satan’s being bound,

• Christ commissioned Paul to turn Jew and Gentile “from the

power of Satan unto God” (Acts 26:18)

• Paul could deliver the Corinthian fornicator to Satan (1

Corinthians 5:5)

• Satan can transform himself “into an angel of light” (2

Corinthians 11:14)

• Paul would warn the Ephesian believers not to “give place to

the devil” (Ephesians 4:27) and urge them and us today to
“stand against the wiles of the devil” (6:11)

• Satan could still be going about “like a roaring lion...seeking

 whom he may devour” (1 Peter 5:8)

• Satan could still be able to continually accuse Christians before

God and, with his angels, yet wage war in heaven against
“Michael and his angels” and at last be cast out of heaven to
earth (Revelation 12:7–10)
Augustine was one of the first to place the authority of tradition on a
level with the Bible, and to incorporate much philosophy, especially
Platonism, into his theology. Exposing the folly of those who praise
Augustine, Vance writes:
He believed in apostolic succession from Peter as one of the marks of the true
church, taught that Mary was sinless and promoted her worship. He was the first
who defined the so-called sacraments as a visible sign of invisible grace.... The
memorial of the Lord’s supper became that of the spiritual presence of Christ’s
body and blood. To Augustine the only true church was the Catholic Church.
Writing against the Donatists, he asserted: “The Catholic Church alone is the body
of Christ.... Outside this body the Holy Spirit giveth life to no one...[and] he is not a
partaker of divine love who is the enemy of unity. Therefore they have not the
Holy Ghost who are outside the Church.46

And this is the man whom Geisler calls “one of the greatest Christian
thinkers of all time.” On the contrary, Calvin drew from a badly polluted
stream when he embraced the teachings of Augustine! How could one dip
into such contaminating heresy without becoming confused and
infected? Yet this bewildering muddle of speculation and formative
Roman Catholicism is acknowledged to be the source of Calvinism—and is
praised by leading evangelicals. One comes away dumbfounded at the
acclaim heaped upon both Calvin and Augustine by otherwise sound
Christian leaders.
An Amazing Contradiction
Calvin’s almost complete agreement with and repeated praise of
Augustine cannot be denied. Calvin called himself “an Augustinian
theologian.”47 Of Augustine he said, “whom we quote frequently, as
being the best and most faithful witness of all antiquity.”48
Calvinists themselves insist upon the connection between Calvin and
Augustine. McGrath writes, “Above all, Calvin regarded his thought as a
faithful exposition of the leading ideas of Augustine of Hippo.”49 Wendel
concedes, “Upon points of doctrine he borrows from St. Augustine with
both hands.”50 Vance writes:
Howbeit, to prove conclusively that Calvin was a disciple of Augustine, we need
look no further than Calvin himself. One can’t read five pages in Calvin’s Institutes
without seeing the name of Augustine. Calvin quotes Augustine over four hundred
times in the Institutes alone. He called Augustine by such titles as “holy man” and
“holy father.”51

As Vance further points out, “Calvinists admit that Calvin was heavily
influenced by Augustine in forming his doctrine of predestination.”52 How
could one of the leaders of the Reformation embrace so fully the
doctrines of one who has been called the “principal theological creator of
the Latin-Catholic system as distinct from...Evangelical Protestantism...”?
53

Calvin’s admiration of Augustine and his embracing of much of his

teaching is only one of several major contradictions in his life, which will
be fully documented in this book. The situation is contradictory on the
Roman Catholic side as well. Their dogmas reject some of the most
important doctrines held by the most famous of their saints—the very
Augustinian doctrines that Calvin embraced.
Here we confront a strange anomaly. Warfield declares that “it is
Augustine who gave us the Reformation”54—yet at the same time, he also
acknowledges that Augustine was “in a true sense the founder of Roman
Catholicism”55 and “the creator of the Holy Roman Empire.”56
Strangely, Calvin apparently failed to recognize that Augustine never
understood salvation by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone.
Philip F. Congdon writes, “Another curious parallel is evident between
Classical Calvinist theology and Roman Catholic theology. The two share
an inclusion of works in the gospel message, and an impossibility of
assurance of salvation.... Both hold to the primacy of God’s grace; both
include the necessity of our works.”57 Augustine’s heresies, especially his
Romanist view of faith in Christ being supplemented by good works and
the sacraments, were not lost on Luther, who wrote: “In the beginning, I
devoured Augustine, but when...I knew what justification by faith really
was, then it was out with him.”58
Yet leading Calvinists suggest that I side with Roman Catholicism by
rejecting Calvinism, even though it comes largely from the ultimate
Roman Catholic, Augustine. Here is how one writer expressed it to me:
And given that the position you espouse is, in fact, utterly opposed to the very
heart of the message of the Reformers, and is instead in line with Rome’s view of
man’s will and the nature of grace, I find it tremendously inconsistent on your part.
You speak often of opposing the traditions of men, yet, in this case, you embrace
the very traditions that lie at the heart of Rome’s “gospel.”59

On the contrary, the Reformers and their creeds are infected with
ideas that came from the greatest Roman Catholic, Augustine himself.
Furthermore, a rejection of Election, Predestination, and the Preservation
of the Saints as defined by Calvinists is hardly embracing “the heart of
Rome’s ‘gospel.’” The real heart of Rome’s gospel is good works and
sacraments. Certainly Calvin’s retention of sacramentalism, baptismal
regeneration for infants, and honoring the Roman Catholic priesthood as
valid is a more serious embrace of Catholicism’s false gospel. The
rejection of Calvinism requires no agreement with Rome whatsoever on
any part of its heretical doctrines of salvation.
It seems incomprehensible that the predominant influence upon
Reformed theology and creeds could be so closely related to the very
Roman Catholicism against which the Reformers rebelled. Yet those who
fail to bow to these creeds are allegedly “in error.” How the Protestant
creeds came to be dominated by Calvinistic doctrine is an interesting
story.
The Role of the Latin Vulgate
Along with the writings of Augustine, the Latin Vulgate also molded
Calvin’s thoughts as expressed in his Institutes of the Christian Religion.
Fluent in Latin, Calvin had long used that corrupted translation of the
Bible, which, since its composition by Jerome at the beginning of the fifth
century, was the official Bible of Roman Catholics. It was again so
declared by the Council of Trent in 1546, when Calvin was 37 years of age.
More than that, its influence reached into the Protestant movement: “For
one thousand years the Vulgate was practically the only Bible known and
read in Western Europe. All commentaries were based upon the Vulgate
text…. Preachers based their sermons on it.”60
The Vulgate was permeated with Augustinian views on predestination
and the rejection of free will. According to Philip Schaff, “The Vulgate can
be charged, indeed, with innumerable faults, inaccuracies,
inconsistencies, and arbitrary dealing in particulars.”61 Others have
expressed the same opinion. Samuel Fisk quotes Samuel Berger, who in
the Cambridge History of the English Bible, Vol. 3 (S. L. Greenslade, ed.,
Cambridge, England: University Press, 1963, 414), called the Vulgate “the
most vulgarized and bastardized text imaginable.”62 Grady says,
“Damasus commissioned Jerome to revive the archaic Old Latin Bible in
A.D. 382...the completed monstrosity became known as the Latin
‘Vulgate’...and was used of the devil to usher in the Dark Ages.”63 Fisk
reminds us:
Well-known examples of far-reaching errors include the whole system of Catholic
“penance,” drawn from the Vulgate’s “do penance”...when the Latin should have
followed the Greek—repent. Likewise the word “sacrament” was a misreading
from the Vulgate of the original word for mystery. Even more significant, perhaps,
was the rendering of the word presbyter (elder) as “priest.”64
 Augustine described the problem that led to the production of the
Vulgate: “In the earliest days of the faith, when a Greek manuscript came
into anyone’s hands, and he thought he possessed a little facility in both
languages, he ventured to make a translation [into Latin].”65 As a
consequence of such individual endeavor, Bruce says, “The time came,
however, when the multiplicity of [Latin] texts [of Scripture] became too
inconvenient to be tolerated any longer, and Pope
Damasus...commissioned his secretary, Jerome, to undertake the work”
of revision to produce one authorized Latin version.
Bruce continues: “He [Jerome] was told to be cautious for the sake of
‘weaker brethren’ who did not like to see their favorite texts tampered
with, even in the interests of greater accuracy. Even so, he went much
too far for the taste of many, while he himself knew that he was not going
far enough.”66 Unger’s Bible Dictionary comments:
For many centuries it [Vulgate] was the only Bible generally used.... In the age of
the Reformation the Vulgate [influenced] popular versions. That of Luther (N. T. in
1523) was the most important and in this the Vulgate had great weight. From
Luther the influence of the Latin passed to our own Authorized Version [KJV]....67

The Geneva and King James Bibles and Protestant Creeds

Of no small importance to our study is the fact that this corrupt
translation had an influence upon the Protestant churches in Europe,
England, and America. That influence carried over into the Geneva Bible
(which has further problems; see below) as well as into other early
versions of the English Bible, and even into the King James Bible of today.
As the Vulgate was filled with Augustinianisms, the Geneva Bible was
filled with Calvinism, in the text as well as in voluminous notes. H. S.
Miller’s General Biblical Introduction says, “It was a revision of Tyndale’s,
with an Introduction by Calvin...the work of English reformers, assisted by
Beza, Calvin, and possibly others.” J. R. Dore, in Old Bibles: An Account of
the Early Versions of the English Bible, 2nd edition, adds that “almost
every chapter [of the Geneva Bible] has voluminous notes full of
Calvinistic doctrine.” Andrew Edgar, in The Bibles of England, declares, “At
the time the Geneva Bible was first published, Calvin was the ruling spirit
in Geneva. All the features of his theological, ecclesiastical, political, and
social system are accordingly reflected in the marginal annotations.... The
doctrine of predestination is proclaimed to be the head cornerstone of
the gospel.”68
W. Hoare says in The Evolution of the English Bible, “Considered as a
literary whole it [the Geneva Bible] has about it the character of a
Calvinist manifesto...a book with a special purpose.” F. F. Bruce adds,

“The notes of the Geneva Bible...are, to be sure, unashamedly Calvinistic in

doctrine.... The people of England and Scotland...learned much of their biblical
exegesis from these notes.... The Geneva Bible immediately won, and retained,
widespread popularity. It became the household Bible of English-speaking
Protestants.... This became the authorized Bible in Scotland and was brought to
America where it had a strong influence.”69

Butterworth points out: “In the lineage of the King James Bible this
[Geneva Bible] is by all means the most important single volume.... The
Geneva Bible...had a very great influence in the shaping of the King James
Bible.”70 Robinson is even more emphatic:
A large part of its [Geneva Bible] innovations are included in the Authorized
Version [KJV].... Sometimes the Geneva text and the Geneva margin are taken over
intact, sometimes the text becomes the margin and the margin the text.
Sometimes the margin becomes the text and no alternative is offered. Very often
the Genevan margin becomes the Authorized Version text with or without verbal
change.”71

Further documentation could be given, but this should be sufficient to

trace briefly the influence from that ultimate Roman Catholic, Augustine,
through the Latin Vulgate and his writings, upon Calvin—and through
Calvin, into the Geneva Bible and on into the King James Bible. And thus
into the pulpits and homes of Protestants throughout Europe, England,
and America. It is small wonder, then, that those who, like Arminius,
dared to question Calvinism, were overwhelmed with opposition. Of
course, various synods and assemblies were held to formulate accepted
creeds and to punish the dissenters, but the decks were stacked in favor
of Calvinism, and no influence to mitigate this error was allowed. This will
be documented in chapters 5 and 6.
The New Geneva Study Bible and Reformation Truth
Today’s New Geneva Study Bible (recently reprinted as The
Reformation Study Bible) is being widely distributed in an effort to
indoctrinate the readers into Calvinism. Its New King James translation is
appealing. As with the original Geneva Bible, however, the notes are
Calvinistic treatises. In his foreword, R. C. Sproul writes,
The New Geneva Study Bible is so called because it stands in the tradition of the
original Geneva Bible.... The light of the Reformation was the light of the Bible....
The Geneva Bible was published in 1560...[and] dominated the English-speaking
world for a hundred years.... Pilgrims and Puritans carried the Geneva Bible to the
shores of the New World. American colonists were reared on the Geneva Bible....
The New Geneva Study Bible contains a modern restatement of Reformation truth
in its comments and theological notes. Its purpose is to present the light of the
Reformation afresh.

In fact, its purpose is to indoctrinate the reader into Calvinism, which

inaccurately is marketed as “Reformation truth”—as though Calvinism
and Protestantism are identical. There was, in fact, much more to the
Reformation than Calvinism, Calvinists’ claims notwithstanding.
The Necessity to Clarify Confusion
Calvinism is experiencing resurgence today. Yet there is widespread
ignorance of what both Augustine and Calvin really taught and practiced.
Has the truth been suppressed to further a particular theology? Consider
Boettner’s declaration that “Calvin and Augustine easily rank as the two
outstanding systematic expounders of the Christian system since Saint
Paul.”72 Spurgeon, also declared: “Augustine obtained his views, without
doubt, through the Spirit of God, from the diligent study of the writings of
Paul, and Paul received them of the Holy Ghost, from Jesus Christ”.73
One cannot but view such statements with astonishment. How
incredible that Loraine Boettner, one of the foremost apologists opposing
the Roman Catholic Church, praised Augustine, who gave the Roman
Catholic Church so many of its basic doctrines that he is among the most
highly honored of its “saints” to this day.
As for Spurgeon, would he have considered that Augustine’s teaching
of salvation by the Roman Catholic Church, through its sacraments alone,
beginning with regeneration by infant baptism; the use of force even to
the death against “heretics”; acceptance of the Apocrypha; allegorical
interpretation of creation and the prophecies concerning Israel; a
rejection of the literal reign of Christ on David’s throne; and so much
other false doctrine, had also all been received from the Holy Spirit? How
could Augustine—and Calvin, who embraced and passed on many of his
major errors—be so wrong on so much and yet be biblically sound as
regards predestination, election, sovereignty, etc.? Is there not ample
cause to examine carefully these foundational teachings of Calvinism?
One can only respond in the affirmative. For that reason, the key
Calvinist doctrines will be presented in the following pages and compared
carefully with God’s Word.

1. David N. Steele and Curtis C. Thomas, The Five Points of Calvinism (Phillipsburg, NJ:
Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1963), 19.
2. Laurence M. Vance, The Other Side of Calvinism (Pensacola, FL: Vance Publications, rev.
ed., 1999), 37.
 3. Kenneth G. Talbot and W. Gary Crampton, Calvinism, Hyper-Calvinism and Arminianism
(Edmonton, AB: Still Water Revival Books, 1990), 78.
4. Benjamin B. Warfield, Calvin and Augustine, ed. Samuel G. Craig (Phillipsburg, NJ:
Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1956), 22.
5. John Piper, The Legacy of Sovereign Joy: God’s Triumphant Grace in the Lives of
Augustine, Luther, and Calvin (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 2000), 24-25.
6. Charles Haddon Spurgeon, ed., Exposition of the Doctrine of Grace (Pasadena, CA: Pilgrim
Publications, n. d.), 298.
7. Alvin L. Baker, Berkouwer’s Doctrine of Election: Balance or Imbalance? (Phillipsburg,
NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1981), 25.
8. St. Augustine, A Treatment On the Soul and its Origins, Book IV, 16.
9. C. Gregg Singer, John Calvin: His Roots and Fruits (Abingdon Press, 1989), vii.
10. Vance, Other Side, 40.
11. John Calvin, “A Treatise on the Eternal Predestination of God,” in John Calvin, Calvin’s
Calvinism, trans. Henry Cole (Grandville, MI: Reformed Free Publishing Association,
1987), 38; cited in Vance, Other Side, 38.
12. Leonard Verduin, The Reformers and Their Stepchildren (Sarasota, FL: Christian Hymnary
Publishers, 1991), 33.
13. Petilian II.85.189; cited in W. H. C. Frend, The Rise of Christianity (Philadelphia, PA:
Fortress Press, 1984), 671.
14. Frend, Rise, 671.
15. Ibid., 672.
16. F.F. Bruce, Light in the West, Vol 3 in The Spreading Flame (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B.
Eerdmans Publishing Co, 1956), 60-61.
17. E. H. Broadbent, The Pilgrim Church (Port Colborne, ON: Gospel Folio Press, reprint
1999), 49.
18. Henry H. Milman, History of Christianity (New York: A. C. Armstrong and Son, 1886),
3:176.
19. Warfield, Calvin, v.
20. John Calvin, contents page of Institutes of the Christian Religion, trans. Henry Beveridge
(Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1998 ed.), III: xxiii, IV: xvii, etc.
21. Calvin, Institutes, III: xxi, 2.
22. Ibid., xxi, 4.
23. Ibid., xxiii, 1.
24. Ibid., 5.
25. Ibid.
26. Ibid., 8.
27. Ibid., IV: xiii, 9.
28. Ibid., III: xxiii, 11.
29. Ibid., 13.
30. Ibid., 14.
31. Richard A. Muller, Christ and the Decree (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1988),
22.
32. Norman L. Geisler, What Augustine Says (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1982),
9.
33. Aug. Cont. Epist. Fundament c.v.
34. John Paul II, Sovereign Pontiff, Augustineum Hyponensem (Apostolic Letter, August 28,
1986. Available at: www. cin.org/jp2.ency/augustin.html).
35. Dave Hunt and James White, Debating Calvinism, (Sisters, OR: Multnomah Publishers,
2004), 244.
36. Calvin, Institutes, I: vii, 3.
37. Talbot and Crampton, Calvinism, Hyper-Calvinism, 78; cited in Vance, Other Side, 39.
38. Alexander Souter, The Earliest Latin Commentaries on the Epistles of St. Paul (n. p., 1927),
139.
39. N. L. Rice, God Sovereign and Man Free (Harrisonburg, VA: Sprinkle Publications,
1985), 13.
40. Benjamin B. Warfield, “The Idea of Systematic Theology,” in The Princeton Theology, ed.
Mark A. Noll (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1983), 258.
41. Vance, Other Side, 41.
42. Richard N. Ostling, “The Second Founder of the Faith” (Time, September 29, 1986).
43. William P. Grady, Final Authority: A Christian’s Guide to the King James Bible
(Knoxville, TN: Grady Publications, 1993), 54.
44. Sir Robert Anderson, The Bible or the Church? (London: Pickering and Inglis, 2nd ed., n.
d.), 53.
45. Augustine, The City of God, trans. Marcus Dods. In Great Books of the Western World, ed.
Robert Maynard Hutchins and Mortimer J. Adler (Encyclopaedia Brittanica, Inc., 1952),
XX:7, 8.
46. Vance, Other Side, 55.
47. Talbot and Crampton, Calvinism, Hyper-Calvinism, 79.
48. Calvin, Institutes, IV:xiv, 26.
49. Alister E. McGrath, The Life of John Calvin (Cambridge, MA: Blackwell Publishers, 1990),
151.
50. Francois Wendel, Calvin: Origins and Development of His Religious Thought (Grand
Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1997), 124.
51. Vance, Other Side; citing Calvin, Institutes, 139, 146, 148–49.
52. Vance, Other Side, 113; citing Wendel, Origins, 264, and Timothy George, Theology of the
Reformers (Nashville, TN: Broadman Press, 1988), 232.
53. Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1910;
Grand Rapids, MI: Wm B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., reprint 1959), III: 1018.
54. Warfield, Calvin, 322.
55. Ibid., 313.
56. Ibid., 318.
57. Philip F. Congdon, “Soteriological Implications of Five-point Calvinism,” Journal of the
Grace Evangelical Society, Autumn 1995, 8:15, 55–68.
58. George, Theology, 68.
59. James R. White to Dave Hunt, August 4, 2000. On file.
60. David Schaff, Our Father’s Faith and Ours, 172; cited in Samuel Fisk, Calvinistic Paths
Retraced (Raleigh, NC: Biblical Evangelism Press, 1985), 68.
61. Philip Schaff, History, II:975–76.
62. Samuel Fisk, Calvinistic Paths Retraced (Raleigh, NC: Biblical Evangelism Press, 1985),
68.
63. Grady, Final Authority, 35.
64. Fisk, Calvinistic, 67.
65. F. F. Bruce, The Books and the Parchments (London: Pickering and Inglis, Ltd., 1950),
191.
66. Bruce, Books, 194–95.
67. Merrill F. Unger, Unger’s Bible Dictionary (Chicago, IL: Moody Press, 1969), 1151–54.
68. Fisk, Calvinistic, 70–75.
69. F.F. Bruce, The English Bible: A History of Translations (New York: Oxford University
Press, 1961), 90-91.
70. Charles C. Butterworth, The Literary Lineage of the King James Bible (Philadelphia:
University of Pennsylvania Press, 1941), 163.
71. H. Wheeler Robinson, The Bible In Its Ancient and English Versions (Oxford: Clarendon
Press, 1940), 186, 206–207.
72. Loraine Boettner, The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination (Phillipsburg, NJ : Presbyterian
and Reformed Publishing Co., 1932), 405.
73. Spurgeon, Exposition, 298; cited in Vance, Other Side, 38.
5—Irresistibly Imposed “Christianity”
ONE OF SATAN’S CLEVEREST and most effective strategies was to
delude the Emperor Constantine with a false conversion. The influence of
that one event upon subsequent history, both religious and secular, is
incalculable. Accounts differ, but whether this came about through a
vision or a dream as recounted by Eusebius and Lactantius,1 Constantine
saw a “cross” in the sky and heard a “voice” proclaiming (by some
accounts the words were inscribed on the cross), “In this sign thou shalt
conquer.” In the prior year, the god Apollo had also promised him victory.
Constantine’s edicts of toleration gave every man “a right to choose
his religion according to the dictates of his own conscience and honest
conviction, without compulsion and interference from the government.”2
Schaff views Constantine’s conversion as a wonderful advance for
Christianity: “The church ascends the throne of the Caesars under the
banner of the cross, and gives new vigor and lustre to the hoary empire of
Rome.”3 In fact, that “conversion” accelerated the corruption of the
church through its marriage to the world.4
How could a true follower of the Christ, whose kingdom is not of this
world and whose servants do not wage war, proceed to wage war in His
name? How could a true follower, under the banner of His cross, proceed
to conquer with the sword? Of course, the Crusaders later did the same,
slaughtering both Muslims and Jews to retake the “holy land” under Pope
Urban II’s pledge (matching Muhammad’s and the Qur’an’s promise to
Muslims) of full forgiveness of sins for those who died in this holy war
(Muslims call it jihad). The Crusades, of course, like all of the popes’ wars,
were very Augustinian. The City of God had to be defended!
From Constantine to Augustine
 As Durant and other historians have pointed out, Constantine never
renounced his loyalty to the pagan gods. He abolished neither the Altar of
Victory in the Senate nor the Vestal Virgins who tended the sacred fire of
the goddess Vesta. The Sun-god, not Christ, continued to be honored on
the imperial coins. In spite of the “cross” (actually the cross of the god
Mithras) on his shields and military banners, Constantine had a medallion
created honoring the Sun for the “liberation” of Rome; and when he
prescribed a day of rest, it was again in the name of the Sun-god (“the day
celebrated by the veneration of the Sun”5) and not the Son of God.6
Durant reminds us that throughout his “Christian” life, Constantine used
pagan as well as Christian rites and continued to rely upon “pagan magic
formulas to protect crops and heal disease.”7
That Constantine murdered those who might have had a claim to his
throne, including his son Crispus, a nephew, and brother-in-law, is further
indication that his “conversion” was, as many historians agree, a clever
political maneuver to unite the empire. Historian Philip Hughes, himself a
Catholic priest, reminds us, “in his manners he [Constantine] remained, to
the end, very much the Pagan of his early life. His furious tempers, the
cruelty which, once aroused, spared not the lives even of his wife and
son, are...an unpleasing witness to the imperfection of his conversion.”8
It was not long after the new tolerance that Constantine found himself
faced with a problem he had never anticipated: division within the
Christian church to which he had given freedom. As we noted in the last
chapter, it came to a head in North Africa with the Donatists, who,
concerned for purity of the faith, separated from the official state
churches, rejected their ordinances, and insisted on rebaptizing clergy
who had repented after having denied the faith during the persecutions
that arose when the Emperor Diocletian demanded that he be worshiped
as a god.9 After years of futile efforts to reestablish unity through
discussion, pleadings, councils, and decrees, Constantine finally resorted
to force. Frend explains:
 In the spring of 317 he [Constantine] followed up his decision by publishing a
“most severe” edict against the Donatists, confiscating their property and exiling
their leaders. Within four years the universal freedom of conscience proclaimed at
Milan had been abrogated, and the state had become a persecutor once more,
only this time in favor of Christian orthodoxy.... [The Donatists] neither understood
nor cared about Constantine’s conversion. For them it was a case of the Devil
insisting that “Christ was a lover of unity”.... In their view, the fundamental
hostility of the state toward the [true] church had not been altered.10

In his own day and way, Augustine followed Constantine’s lead in his
treatment of the Donatists, who were still a thorn in the side of the
Roman Church. “While Augustine and the Catholics emphasized the unity
of the Church, the Donatists insisted upon the purity of the Church and
rebaptized all those who came to them from the Catholics—considering
the Catholics corrupt.”11 Constantine had been “relentless [as would be
Augustine and his disciple Calvin] in his pursuit of ‘heretics’ [forbidding]
those outside of the Catholic church to assemble...and confiscated their
property…. The very things Christians had endured themselves were now
being practiced in the name of Christianity.”12
As a good citizen enjoying the blessing of the Emperor, and believing in
the state church Constantine had established, Augustine persecuted and
even sanctioned the killing of the Donatists and other schismatics, as we
have already seen. Gibbon tells us that the severe measures against the
Donatists “obtained the warmest approbation of St. Augustine [and
thereby] great numbers of the Donatists were reconciled to [forced back
into] the Catholic Church.”13
Of Augustine it has been said that “the very greatness of his name has
been the means of perpetuating the grossest errors which he himself
propagated. More than anyone else, Augustine has encouraged the
pernicious doctrine of salvation through the sacraments of an organized
earthly Church, which brought with it priestcraft with all the evil and
miseries that has entailed down through the centuries.”14
From Augustine to Calvin
There is no question that John Calvin still viewed the church of Christ
through Roman Catholic eyes. He saw the church (as Constantine had
molded it and Augustine had cemented it) as a partner of the state, with
the state enforcing orthodoxy (as the state church defined it) upon all its
citizens. Calvin applied his legal training and zeal to the development of a
system of Christianity based upon an extreme view of God’s sovereignty,
which, by the sheer force of its logic, would compel kings and all mankind
to conform all affairs to righteousness. In partnership with the church,
kings and other civil rulers would enforce Calvinistic Christianity.
Of those who believed in a thousand-year reign of Christ upon earth,
Calvin said their “fiction is too puerile to need or to deserve refutation.”15
As far as Calvin was concerned, Christ’s kingdom began with His advent
upon earth and had been in process ever since. Rejecting the literal future
reign of Christ upon the earth through His Second Coming to establish an
earthly kingdom upon David’s throne in Jerusalem, Calvin apparently felt
obliged to establish the kingdom by his own efforts in Christ’s absence.
The Bible makes it clear that one must be “born again” even to “see
the kingdom of God” (John 3:3) and that “flesh and blood cannot inherit
the kingdom of God” (1 Corinthians 15:50). Ignoring this biblical truth and
following Augustine’s error, Calvin determined (along with Guillaume
Farel) to establish the kingdom of God on earth in Geneva, Switzerland.
On November 10, 1536, the Confession of Faith, which all the
bourgeoisie and inhabitants of Geneva and subjects in its territories
should swear to adhere to, and which Farel had drafted in consultation
with Calvin, was officially presented to the city. It was a lengthy document
with detailed rules covering everything from church membership,
attendance, preaching, and obedience of the flock, to expulsion of
offenders. Geneva’s authorities approved the document on January 16,
1537. “In March the Anabaptists were banished. In April, at Calvin’s
instigation [a house-to-house inspection was launched] to ensure that the
inhabitants subscribed to the Confession of Faith…. On October 30 there
was an attempt to wring a profession of faith from all those hesitating.
Finally, on November 12, an edict was issued declaring that all
recalcitrants ‘[who] do not wish to swear to the Reformation are
commanded to leave the city’….”16
“The Reformation”? There were variations and differences among the
several factions in the budding Reformation, from Luther to Zwingli. But
in Geneva, Calvinism alone was to be known as “The Reformation” and
“Reformed Theology.” That presumptuous claim is still insisted upon by
Calvinists today all over the world.
Calvin’s first attempt failed. Boettner acknowledges, “Due to an
attempt of Calvin and Farel to enforce a too severe system of discipline in
Geneva, it became necessary for them to leave the city temporarily.”17
Calvin’s Triumphant Return
Three years later, however, facing Catholic opposition from within and
the threat of armed intervention by Roman Catholics from without,
Geneva’s city council decided that they needed Calvin’s strong measures
and invited him back. He reentered the city on September 13, 1541. This
time, he would eventually succeed in imposing his version of the
Reformation upon Geneva’s citizens with an iron hand. His first act was to
hand the city council his Ecclesiastical Ordinances, which were adopted
November 20, 1541. Stefan Zweig tells us:
One of the most momentous experiments of all time began when this lean and
harsh man entered the Cornavian Gate [of Geneva]. A State [the walled city-state
of Geneva] was to be converted into a rigid mechanism; innumerable souls, people
with countless feelings and thoughts, were to be compacted into an all-embracing
and unique system. This was the first [Protestant] attempt made in Europe to
impose...a uniform subordination upon an entire populace.

With systematic thoroughness, Calvin set to work for the realization of his plan to
convert Geneva into the first Kingdom of God on earth. It was to be a community
 without corruption, disorder, vice or sin; it was to be the New Jerusalem, a centre
from which the salvation of the world would radiate.… The whole of his life was
devoted to the service of this one idea.18

Calvin’s intention to establish ecclesiastical rule would occupy most of

the rest of his life. Though recognizing Calvin’s influence and power, the
Small Council of Sixty and the Large Council of Two Hundred, responsible
for civil affairs, resisted being taken over by the religious authority
(consistory) over which Calvin held sway. The power struggle continued
for years, the councils even seeking to retain control over some church
disciplines such as excommunications, with Calvin defiantly refusing to
yield.
Finally, in February 1555, Calvin’s supporters gained the absolute
majority on the council. On May 16th there was an attempted uprising
against Calvin’s exclusion from the Lord’s Supper of certain libertarian
civic officials.19 Riot leaders who fled Geneva to Bern were sentenced to
death in absentia. Four who failed to escape were beheaded and
quartered, and their body parts were hung in strategic locations as a
warning.20 Evoking the phrase “henchmen of Satan” that he had years
before used against Anabaptists, Calvin justified this barbarity: “Those
who do not correct evil when they can do so and their office requires it
are guilty of it.”21
From early 1554 until his death in 1564, “no one any longer dared
oppose the Reformer openly.”22 Calvin’s opponents had either been
silenced, expelled, or had fled to save their lives. Calvin’s “control of the
city continued without weakening.” He was determined to make Geneva
the base for building Augustine’s City of God everywhere. “Geneva
became the symbol and incarnation of that ‘other’ Reformation…,”23 but
which Calvinists today claim was the Reformation.
Tyranny in Geneva
Perhaps Calvin thought he was God’s instrument to force Irresistible
Grace (a key doctrine in Calvinism) upon the citizens of Geneva,
Switzerland—even upon those who proved their unworthiness by
resisting to the death. He unquestionably did his best to be irresistible in
imposing “righteousness,” but what he imposed and the manner in which
he imposed it was far from grace and the teachings and example of
Christ.
Some of those who profess a “Reformed” faith today, especially those
known as Reconstructionists such as the late Rousas J. Rushdoony, Gary
North, Jay Grimstead, and others (including organizations such as the
Coalition on Revival), take Calvin’s Geneva as their model and thus hope
to Christianize the United States and then the world. Many Christian
activists of looser attachment to Calvin hope, in their own way, through
protest marches and the organizing of large enough voting blocks, to
force an ungodly American citizenry into godly living. No one ever worked
so hard at attempting to do this and for so long a time as Calvin. Durant
reports:
To regulate lay conduct a system of domiciliary visits was established...and
questioned the occupants on all phases of their lives.... The allowable color and
quantity of clothing, and the number of dishes permissible at a meal, were
specified by law. Jewelry and lace were frowned upon. A woman was jailed for
arranging her hair to an immoral height....

Censorship of the press was taken over from Catholic and secular precedents and
enlarged: books…of immoral tendency were banned.... To speak disrespectfully of
Calvin or the clergy was a crime. A first violation of these ordinances was punished
with a reprimand, further violation with fines, persistent violation with
imprisonment or banishment. Fornication was to be punished with exile or
drowning; adultery, blasphemy, or idolatry, with death...a child was beheaded for
striking its parents. In the years 1558–59 there were 414 prosecutions for moral
offenses; between 1542 and 1564 there were seventy-six banishments and fifty-
eight executions; the total population of Geneva was then about 20,000.24

The oppression of Geneva could not have come from the Holy Spirit’s
guidance (“…where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty” [2 Corinthians
3:17]), but rather from Calvin’s powerful personality and extreme view of
God’s sovereignty that denied free will to man. Thus “grace” had to be
irresistibly imposed in an unbiblical attempt to inflict “godliness” upon
the citizens of Geneva. In contrast to the humility, mercy, love,
compassion, and longsuffering of Christ, whom he loved and tried to
serve, Calvin exerted authority much like the papacy he despised.
Moreover, he criticized other Protestant leaders for not doing the same:
Seeing that the defenders of the Papacy are so bitter and bold in behalf of their
superstitions, that in their atrocious fury they shed the blood of the innocent, it
should shame Christian magistrates that in the protection of certain truth, they are
entirely destitute of spirit.25

Calvin’s defenders deny the facts and attempt to exonerate him by

blaming what he did on the civil authorities. Boettner even insists that
“Calvin was the first of the Reformers to demand complete separation
between Church and State.”26 In fact, Calvin not only established
ecclesiastical law, but he codified the civil legislation.27 He held the civil
authorities responsible to “foster and maintain the external worship of
God, to defend sound doctrine and the condition of the church”28 and to
see that “no idolatry, no blasphemy against God’s name, no calumnies
against his truth, nor other offenses to religion break out and be
disseminated among the people...[but] to prevent the true religion...from
being with impunity openly violated and polluted by public blasphemy.”29
Calvin used the civil arm to impose his peculiar doctrines upon the
citizens of Geneva, and to enforce them. Zweig, who pored over the
official records of the City Council for Calvin’s day, tells us, “There is
hardly a day, in the records of the settings of the Town Council, in which
we do not find the remark: ‘Better consult Master Calvin about this.’”30
Pike reminds us that Calvin was given a “consultant’s chair” in every
meeting of the city authorities and “when he was sick the authorities
would come to his house for their sessions.”31 Rather than diminishing
with time, Calvin’s power only grew. John McNeil, a Calvinist, admits that
“in Calvin’s latter years, and under his influence, the laws of Geneva
became more detailed and more stringent.”32
Don’t Cross Dr. Calvin!
With dictatorial control over the populace (“he ruled as few sovereigns
have done”33), Calvin imposed his brand of Christianity upon the citizenry
with floggings, imprisonments, banishments, and burnings at the stake.
Calvin has been called “the Protestant Pope” and “the Genevese dictator”
who “would tolerate in Geneva the opinions of only one person, his
own.”34 Concerning the adoption in Geneva of a confession of faith that
was made mandatory for all citizens, the historian Philip Schaff
comments:
It was a glaring inconsistency that those who had just shaken off the yoke of
popery as an intolerable burden, should subject their conscience and intellect to a
human creed; in other words, substitute for the old Roman popery a modern
Protestant popery.35

Durant says that “Calvin held power as the head of this consistory;
from 1541 till his death in 1564, his voice was the most influential in
Geneva.”36 Vance reminds us that:
Calvin was involved in every conceivable aspect of city life: safety regulations to
protect children, laws against recruiting mercenaries, new inventions, the
introduction of cloth manufacturing, and even dentistry. He was consulted not
only on all important state affairs, but on the supervision of the markets and
assistance for the poor.37

Calvin’s efforts were often laudable, but matters of faith were

legislated as well. A confession of faith drawn up by Calvin was made
mandatory for all citizens. It was a crime for anyone to disagree with this
Protestant pope. Durant comments:
All the claims of the popes for the supremacy of the church over the state were
renewed by Calvin for his church....[Calvin] was as thorough as any pope in
 rejecting individualism of belief; this greatest legislator of Protestantism
completely repudiated that principle of private judgment with which the new
religion had begun.... In Geneva...those...who could not accept it would have to
seek other habitats. Persistent absence from Protestant [Calvinist] services, or
continued refusal to take the Eucharist was a punishable offense.

Heresy again became...treason to the state, and was to be punished with death....
In one year, on the advice of the Consistory, fourteen alleged witches were sent to
the stake on the charge that they had persuaded Satan to afflict Geneva with
plague.38

Calvin was again following in the footsteps of Augustine, who had

enforced “unity...through common participation in the Sacraments....”39
A medical doctor named Jerome Bolsec dared to disagree with Calvin’s
doctrine of predestination. He was arrested for saying that “those who
posit an eternal decree in God by which he has ordained some to life and
the rest to death make of Him a tyrant.…”40 Bolsec was arrested and
banished from Geneva with the warning that if he ever returned he would
be flogged.41 John Trolliet, a city notary, criticized Calvin’s view of
predestination for “making God the author of sin.”42 In fact, the charge
was true, as we shall see in chapters 9 and 10. The court decreed that
“thenceforward no one should dare to speak against this book [Institutes]
and its doctrine.”43 So much for the freedom of conscience that had been
promised would replace the popes’ intolerable oppression!
Calvin’s power was so great that it was tantamount to treason against
the state to oppose him. A citizen named Jacques Gruet was arrested on
suspicion of having placed a placard on Calvin’s pulpit which read in part,
“Gross hypocrite...! After people have suffered long, they avenge
themselves.... Take care that you are not served like M. Verle [who had
been killed]....”44
Gruet was tortured twice daily in a manner similar to which Rome,
rightly condemned by the Reformers for doing so, tortured the victims of
her inquisitions who were accused of daring to disagree with her dogmas.
The use of torture for extracting “confessions” was approved by Calvin.45
After thirty days of severe suffering, Gruet finally confessed—whether
truthfully, or in desperation to end the torture, no one knows. On July 16,
1547, “half dead, he was tied to a stake, his feet were nailed to it, and his
head was cut off.”46 Beheading was the penalty for civil crimes; burning at
the stake was the penalty for theological heresy. Here we see
disagreement with Calvin was treated as a capital offense against the
state.
Irrational Behavior
Calvin followed the principles of punishment, coercion, and death that
Augustine had advocated. Concerning just one period of panic in the face
of plague and famine, Cottret describes “an irrational determination to
punish the fomenters of the evil.” He tells of a man who “died under
torture in February 1545, without admitting his crime…the body was
dragged to the middle of town, in order not to deprive the inhabitants of
the fine burning they had a right to. Sorcerers, like heretics…were
characterized by their combustible qualities…. The executions continued.
Yet those detained refused to confess; the tortures were combined
skillfully to avoid killing the guilty foolishly…[some] were decapitated….
Some committed suicide in their cells to avoid torture…. One of the
arrested women threw herself from a window…. Seven men and twenty-
four women died in the affair; others fled. ”47
In a letter, Calvin advised a friend: “The Lord tests us in a surprising
manner. A conspiracy has just been discovered of men and women who
for three years employed themselves in spreading the plague in the city
by means of sorcery…. Fifteen women have already been burned, and the
men have been punished still more rigorously. Twenty-five of these
criminals are still shut up in the prisons…. So far God has preserved our
house.”
Cottret continues: “Calvin therefore shares in all respects the fantasies
of his entourage. He found occasion to exhort his contemporaries to
pursue sorcerers in order to ‘extirpate such a race’…. A pair of these
henchmen of Satan had just been burned the previous month….”48 Calvin
even believed that the devil, on at least one occasion, helped rid Geneva
of evil, “for in October 1546 he [the devil] bore away through the air (so
Calvin himself testifies) a man who was ill with the plague, and who was
known for his misconduct and impiety.”49
Good Intentions Gone Astray
No one has ever been as successful as John Calvin at totalitarian
imposition of “godliness” upon a whole society. And therefore, no one
has proved as clearly as he that coercion cannot succeed because it can
never change the hearts of men. Calvin’s theology, as laid out in his
Institutes, denied that unregenerate man could choose to believe and
obey God. Apparently, he was ignorant of the commonsense fact that
genuine choice is essential if man is to love and obey God or show love
and real compassion to his fellows. By his determined efforts to make
Geneva’s citizens obey, Calvin disproved his own theories of
Unconditional Election and Irresistible Grace.
What he did prove, seemingly, by years of totalitarian intimidation and
force, was the first of Calvinism’s Five Points, Total Depravity. Try as he
might, there were many whom he simply could not persuade to live as he
decreed, no matter how severe the penalty for failing to do so. He did
succeed in creating many hypocrites who outwardly conformed to the
law so long as the authorities were looking, but in their hearts longed for
and practiced, when possible, the same old sins of the past.
Yes, there were reports from visitors that “cursing and swearing,
unchastity, sacrilege, adultery, and impure living” such as were found
elsewhere were absent from Geneva.50 John Knox, of course, was
enthusiastic. He called Geneva “the most perfect school of Christ that
ever was in the earth since the days of the Apostles.”51 A visiting Lutheran
minister, who thought Calvin’s coercion was commendable, wrote in
1610, “When I was in Geneva I observed something great which I shall
remember and desire as long as I live.” He praised the “weekly
investigations into the conduct, and even the smallest transgressions, of
the citizens” and concluded, “If it were not for the difference of religion, I
would have been chained to Geneva forever.”52
Difference of religion? Yes, Calvinism was not Lutheranism, although
both persecuted the Anabaptists. Protestantism involved several rival
factions, to say nothing of millions of true Christians who had never given
allegiance to Rome and thus had not come out of her as “Protestants.”
Untold multitudes of these believers had been martyred by Roman
Catholics at the instigations of numerous popes for a thousand years
before Luther and Calvin were born. Thus today’s representation of
Calvinism as “Reformation theology” that supposedly revived true
Christianity is grossly inaccurate.
Admirers of John Calvin cite favorable stories as proof of the godly
influence he and his theories exerted in changing a godless society into
one that honored God. His methods, however, often far from Christlike,
could not be justified by any results. Nor could Calvin’s means, as we have
already noted, be justified by the fact that torture, imprisonment, and
execution had been employed by Luther and the popes and other Roman
Catholic clergy to force their religious views upon those under their
power. A true follower of Christ is not to be conformed to this world but
in his behavior is to follow Christ’s example, no matter in what culture or
time in history he finds himself.
Calvin’s followers boast that he was the greatest of exegetes, who
obeyed Scripture meticulously both in formulating his theology and in
guiding his life. Supposedly, Calvin “was willing to break sharply with
tradition where it was contrary to the Word of God.”53 At the same time,
he is defended with the excuse that he was only conforming to the
traditions long established by Rome, which began with Constantine. Otto
Scott says, “In the early years of the Reformation, censorship of manners
and morals remained a settled, accepted part of existing, ancient police
regulations not only in Geneva, but in all Europe.”54
This is true. Such curbs discouraged rebellious attempts to leave one’s
“class,” etc. But that was not Christianity as taught and exemplified by
Christ and His apostles.
There is no way to defend Calvin’s conduct from Scripture. Yes, he was
loving and caring toward those who agreed with him. Yes, he expended
himself and shortened his life through visiting the sick, caring for the
flock, and preaching continually. But in his treatment of those who
disagreed with him, he did not follow but violated both the teachings and
the example of Christ and His apostles.
The Hopelessness of Imposed “Godliness”
Sadly, in spite of threats and torture, Calvin’s Geneva was not as
righteous a city as the selected optimistic stories seem to indicate. The
surviving records of the Council of Geneva unveil a city more similar to
the rest of the world than Calvin’s admirers like to admit. These
documents reveal “a high percentage of illegitimate children, abandoned
infants, forced marriages, and sentences of death.”55 The stepdaughter
and son-in-law of Calvin were among the many condemned for
adultery.56 Calvin had done his best but had failed. He had not been able
to produce among sinners the ideal society—Augustine’s City of God—
which he had envisioned when he wrote his Institutes.
Calvinists teach that the totally depraved unsaved can respond to God
only in unbelief, rebellion, and opposition. White explains: “Unregenerate
men who are enemies of God most assuredly respond to God: in a
universally negative fashion.”57 That being the case, by his own theory,
Calvin’s efforts at Geneva were doomed before they began!
 Speaking for most Calvinists, R. C. Sproul explains that according to the
“Reformed view of predestination before a person can choose Christ he
must be born again”58 by a sovereign act of God. How could Calvin be
sure that God had done this work in the hearts of all in Geneva? If God
had not predestined every citizen of Geneva to salvation, then Calvin was
wrong in trying to force them into a Christian mold. Yet coercion even by
force was an integral part of the system as practiced by Calvin himself and
his immediate successors.
If Calvinists today do not approve of such conduct, might not the
Calvinism that produced such tyranny also be wrong in other respects?
How many of the “elect” were there in Geneva? As Jay Adams points
out, no one, not even Calvin, could know. Calvinism has no explanation
for how the elect could have been identified with certainty among the
hypocrites who acted as though they were among the elect by behaving
themselves, but did so only out of fear of the temporal consequences. No
matter how hard Calvin tried, if God (according to Calvin’s doctrine) had
not elected every citizen in Geneva to salvation (and He apparently had
not), then evil would still persist—though not as blatantly as in other
cities of that day.
Considering Calvin’s abysmal record of failure, one wonders why
today’s Reconstructionists, who hold to the same dogma, nevertheless
believe they will be able to impose righteous living upon entire nations.
Or why evangelicals continue to praise Calvin, the oppressor of Geneva.
Servetus: The Arch Heretic
Born Miguel Serveto in Villanova in 1511, the man known to the world
as Michael Servetus “discovered the pulmonary circulation of the blood—
the passage of the blood from the right chamber of the heart along the
pulmonary artery to and through the lungs, its purification there by
aeration, and its return via the pulmonary vein to the left chamber of the
heart.” He was in some ways “a bit more insane than the average of his
time,” announcing the end of the world in which “the Archangel Michael
would lead a holy war against both the papal and Genevese
Antichrists.”59
Unquestionably, he was a rank heretic whose ravings about Christ
reflected a combination of Islam and Judaism, both of which intrigued
him. He was, however, right about some things: that God does not
predestine souls to hell and that God is love. His otherwise outrageous
ideas might have passed unnoticed had he not published them and
attempted to force them upon Calvin and his fellow ministers in Geneva
with aggressive, contemptuous, and blasphemous railings. That Servetus
titled one of his published works The Restitution of Christianity could only
be taken as an intentional personal affront by the author of the Institutes
of the Christian Religion.
Servetus wrote at least thirty unwelcome letters to Calvin, which must
have irritated the latter greatly. On February 13, 1546, Calvin wrote to
Farel, “Servetus has just sent me a long volume of his ravings. If I consent
he will come here, but I will not give my word, for should he come, if my
authority is of any avail, I will not suffer him to get out alive.”60 Servetus
made the mistake of passing through Geneva seven years later on his way
to Naples and was recognized when he attended church (possibly out of
fear of arrest for nonattendance) by someone who saw through his
disguise and notified Calvin, who in turn ordered his arrest.
The Torture and Burning of Servetus
Early in the trial, which lasted two months, Calvin wrote to Farel, “I
hope that sentence of death will be passed upon him.”61 Obviously, if the
God one believes in predestines billions to a burning hell (all of whom He
could rescue), then to burn at the stake a totally depraved heretic would
seem quite mild and easily justifiable. That logic, however, seems
somehow to escape many of today’s evangelical Christians who admire
the man and call themselves Calvinists.
 The indictment, drawn up by Calvin the lawyer, contained thirty-eight
charges supported by quotations from Servetus’s writings. Calvin
personally appeared in court as the accuser and as “chief witness for the
prosecution.”62 Calvin’s personal reports of the trial matched Servetus’s
railings with such epithets as “the dirty dog wiped his snout...the
perfidious scamp soils each page with impious ravings,” etc.63
Geneva’s Council consulted the other churches of Protestant
Switzerland, and six weeks later their reply was received: Servetus should
be condemned but not executed. Nevertheless, under Calvin’s leadership,
He was sentenced to death on two counts of heresy: Unitarianism
(rejection of the Trinity) and rejection of infant baptism. Durant gives the
horrifying details:
He asked to be beheaded rather than burned; Calvin was inclined to support this
plea, but the aged Farel…reproved him for such tolerance; and the Council voted
that Servetus should be burned alive.

The sentence was carried out the next morning, October 17, 1553.... On the way
[to the burning] Farel importuned Servetus to earn divine mercy by confessing the
crime of heresy; according to Farel the condemned man replied, “I am not guilty, I
have not merited death”; and he besought God to pardon his accusers. He was
fastened to a stake by iron chains, and his last book was bound to his side. When
the flames reached his face he shrieked with agony. After half an hour of burning
he died.64

Calvin accused Servetus of “specious arguments” against infant

baptism. But the latter’s main objections (in spite of his other faults) were
actually quite sound. Calvin’s derisive response, purged of that
unchristian “biting and mocking tone of ridicule that would never leave
him”65 is condensed as follows:
Servetus [argues] that no man becomes our brother unless by the Spirit of
adoption…only conferred by the hearing of faith…. Who will presume…that [God]
may not ingraft infants into Christ by some other secret method…? Again he objects,
that infants cannot be…begotten by the word. But what I have said again and again I
now repeat…God takes his own methods of regenerating…to consecrate infants to
 himself, and initiate them by a sacred symbol…. Circumcision was common to infants
before they received understanding…. Doubtless the design of Satan in assaulting
paedobaptism with all his forces is to…efface, that attestation of divine grace…that

from their birth they have been…acknowledged by him as his children…..66

In spite of his other false views, Servetus was correct in his objections
to infant baptism and was therefore, in that respect, burned at the stake
for a biblical belief that opposed Calvin’s heresy of baptismal
regeneration of infants practiced in many Calvinist churches to this day.
The Failure of Attempted Exonerations
Many attempts have been made by his modern followers to exonerate
Calvin for the unconscionably cruel death of Michael Servetus. It is said
that Calvin visited him in prison and pleaded with him to recant. At the
same time, Calvin’s willingness for Servetus to be beheaded rather than
burned at the stake was not necessarily motivated by kindness, but was
an attempt to transfer responsibility to the civil authority. Beheading was
the penalty for civil crimes; burning at the stake was for heresy. The
charges, however, were clearly theological, not civil, and were brought by
Calvin himself.
The civil authority only acted at the behest of the church. According to
the laws of Geneva, Servetus, as a traveler passing through, should have
been expelled from the city, not executed. It was only his heresy that
doomed him—and only because Calvin pressed the charges. Calvin did
exactly what his view of God required, in keeping with what he had
written to Farel seven years before.
Here again, over Calvin’s shoulder, we see the long shadow of
Augustine. To justify his actions, Calvin borrowed the same perverted
interpretation of Luke 14:23 that Augustine had used. Frend said,
“Seldom have gospel words been given so unexpected a meaning.”67
Farrar writes:
 To him [Augustine] are due…above all the bitter spirit of theological hatred and
persecution. His writings became the Bible of the Inquisition. His name was
adduced—and could there be a more terrible Nemesis on his errors?—to justify
the murder of Servetus.68

There was wide acclaim from Catholics and Protestants alike for the
burning of Servetus. The Inquisition in Vienna burned him in effigy.
Melanchthon wrote Calvin a letter in which he called the burning “a pious
and memorable example to all posterity” and gave “thanks to the Son of
God” for the just “punishment of this blasphemous man.” Others,
however, disagreed; and Calvin became the target of criticism.
Many living in Calvin’s time recognized the wickedness of using force
to promote “Christianity.” Full approval was lacking even among Calvin’s
closest friends.69 Rebuking Calvin for the burning of Servetus, Chancellor
Nicholas Zurkinden, a magistrate, said the sword was inappropriate for
enforcing faith.70 In spite of many such rebukes, Calvin insisted that the
civil sword must keep the faith pure. His conduct was in line with his
rejection of God’s love toward all, and his denial of human choice to
believe the gospel.
Calvin’s Self-Justifications
Some critics argued that burning Servetus would only encourage the
Roman Catholics of France to do the same to the Huguenots (70,000
would be slaughtered in one night in 1572). Stung by such opposition, in
February 1554, Calvin published a broadside aimed at his critics: Defensio
orthodoxae fidei de sacra Trinitate contra prodigiosos errores Michaelis
Serveti. He argued that all who oppose God’s truth are worse than
murderers, because murder merely kills the body whereas heresy damns
the soul for eternity (was that worse than predestination by God to
eternal damnation?), and that God had explicitly instructed Christians to
kill heretics and even to smite with the sword any city that abandoned
the true faith:
 Whoever shall maintain that wrong is done to heretics and blasphemers in
punishing them [with death] makes himself an accomplice in their crime.... It is
God who speaks, and it is clear what law He would have kept in the Church even to
the end of the world...so that we spare not kin nor blood of any, and forget all
humanity when the matter is to combat for His glory.71

Historian R. Tudor Jones declares that this tract, which Calvin wrote in
defense of the burning of Michael Servetus, “is Calvin at his most
chilling...as frightening in its way as Luther’s tract against the rebellious
peasants.”72 Eight years later, Calvin was still defending himself against
criticism and still advocating the burning of heretics. In a 1561 letter to
the Marquis de Poet, high chamberlain to the King of Navarre, Calvin
advises sternly:
Do not fail to rid the country of those zealous scoundrels who stir up the people to
revolt against us. Such monsters should be exterminated, as I have exterminated
Michael Servetus the Spaniard.73

A year later (just two years before his own death), Calvin again justifies
Servetus’s death, while at the same time acknowledging that he was
responsible: “And what crime was it of mine if our Council at my
exhortation...took vengeance upon his execrable blasphemies (emphasis
added)?”74
Calvinists today still persist in offering one excuse after another to
exonerate their hero. Nevertheless, even such a staunch Calvinist as
William Cunningham writes:
There can be no doubt that Calvin beforehand, at the time, and after the event,
explicitly approved and defended the putting him [Servetus] to death, and
assumed the responsibility of the transaction.75

Does the Christian Life Conform to Culture?

Today Calvin’s supporters complain, “No Christian leader has ever
been so often condemned by so many. And the usual grounds for
condemnation are the execution of Servetus and the doctrine of
predestination.”76 In fact, Servetus was only one of many such victims of
Calvinism carried to its logical conclusion. Defenders usually plead that
what Calvin did was common practice and that he should be judged by
the standard of his time. Are “new creatures in Christ Jesus” to rise no
higher than the conventions of their culture and their moment in history?
Surely not!
God’s sovereignty in controlling and causing everything that occurs is
the very heart of Calvinism. Staunch Calvinist C. Gregg Singer declares
that “the secret grandeur of Calvin’s theology lies in his grasp of the
biblical teaching of the sovereignty of God.”77 Could Calvin truly have
believed that he was God’s instrument chosen from past eternity to
coerce, torture, and kill in order to force Geneva’s citizens into behavior
that God had predestined and would cause?
Calvin has been acclaimed as a godly example who based his theology
and actions upon Scripture alone. But much that he did was unbiblical in
the extreme, though consistent with his theology. Is not that fact
sufficient reason to examine Calvinism carefully from Scripture? That the
Pope and Luther joined in unholy alliances with civil rulers to imprison,
flog, torture, and kill dissenters in the name of Christ does not justify
Calvin. Is it not possible that some of Calvin’s theology was just as
unscriptural as the principles that drove his conduct? William Jones
declares:
And with respect to Calvin, it is manifest, that…the most hateful feature in all the
multiform character of popery adhered to him through life—I mean the spirit of
persecution.78

Is not Christ alone the standard for His followers? And is He not always
the same, unchanged by time or culture? How can the popes be
condemned (and rightly so) for the evil they did under the banner of the
Cross, while Calvin is excused for doing much the same, though on a
smaller scale? The following are just two passages among many that
condemn Calvin:

• But the wisdom that is from above is first pure, then

peaceable, gentle, and easy to be intreated, full of mercy and
good fruits, without partiality, and without hypocrisy. (James
3:17)

• He that saith he abideth in him [Christ] ought himself also so to

walk, even as he [Christ] walked. (1 John 2:6)
One wonders how so many of today’s Christian leaders can continue to
laud a man whose behavior was often so far removed from the biblical
exemplar reflected above.

1. W. H. C. Frend, The Rise of Christianity (Philadelphia, PA: Fortress Press, 1984), 482.
2. Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1910;
Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, reprint 1959), II:72–73.
3. Ibid.
4. F. F. Bruce, Light in the West, Bk. III of The Spreading Flame (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm B.
Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1956), 11–13.
5. Codex Theodosianus, (July 3, A.D. 321), XVI:8.1.
6. Frend, Rise, 484.
7. Will Durant, “Caesar and Christ,” Pt. III of The Story of Civilization (New York: Simon and
Schuster, 1950), 656.
8. Philip Hughes, A History of the Church (London, 1934), 1:198.
9. E. H. Broadbent, The Pilgrim Church (Port Colborne, ON: Gospel Folio Press, reprint
1999), 38–39.
10. Frend, Rise, 492.
11. John Laurence Mosheim, An Ecclesiastical History, Ancient and Modern, trans. Archibald
MacLaine (Cincinnati: Applegate and Co., 1854), 101; and many other historians.
12. Laurence M. Vance, The Other Side of Calvinism (Pensacola, FL: Vance Publications, rev.
 ed. 1999), 45.
13. Edward Gibbon, The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire (New York:
Modern Library, n. d.), 2:233.
14. John W. Kennedy, The Torch of the Testimony (Christian Books Publishing House, 1963),
68.
15. John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, trans. Henry Beveridge (Grand Rapids,
MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1998 ed.), III: xxv, 5.
16. Bernard Cottret, Calvin: A Biography (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing
Company, 2000), 128-130.
17. Loraine Boettner, The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian
and Reformed Publishing Co., 1932), 408.
18. Stefan Zweig, Eden Paul and Cedar Paul, trans., The Right to Heresy (London: Cassell and
Company, 1936), 57; cited in Henry R. Pike, The Other Side of John Calvin (Head to Heart,
n. d.), 21–22.
19. Francois Wendel, Calvin: Origins and Development of His Religious Thought (Grand
Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1997), 98-101; Cottret, Calvin, 195-198.
20. Wendel, Calvin, 100; Cottret, Calvin, 198-200.
21. Cottret, Calvin, 200.
22. Roget Amédée, L’Église et l’État a Genève du temps de Calvin. Étude d’histoire politico-
ecclésiastique (Geneva: J. Jullien, 1867).
23. Bernard Cottret, Calvin: A Biography, tr. M. Wallace McDonald (Grand Rapids, MI:
William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2000) 250.
24. Durant, Civilization, III: 474.
25. George Park Fisher, The Reformation (New York: Scribner, Armstrong and Co., 1873),
224.
26. Boettner, Reformed, 410.
27. Ronald S. Wallace, Calvin, Geneva, and the Reformation (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book
House, 1990), 29.
28. Calvin, Institutes, IV: xx, 2.
29. Ibid., 3.
30. Zweig, Erasmus, 217.
31. Pike, John Calvin, 26.
32. John T. McNeil, The History and Character of Calvinism (Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 1966), 189.
33. Williston Walker, John Calvin: The Organizer of Reformed Protestantism (New York:
Schocken Books, 1969), 259.
34. Walker, Organizer, 107.
35. Schaff, History, 8:357.
36. Durant, Civilization, VI: 473.
37. Vance, Other Side, 85.
38. Durant, Civilization, IV: 465.
39. Frend, Rise, 669.
40. The Register of the Company of Pastors of Geneva in the Time of Calvin, trans. and ed.
Philip E. Hughes (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1966), 137–38; cited
in Vance, Other Side, 84.
41. Schaff, History, 8:618.
42. G. R. Potter and M. Greengrass, John Calvin (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1983), 92–93.
43. Register of Geneva, cited in Vance, Other Side, 201.
44. Schaff, History, 502.
45. Fisher, Reformation, 222.
46. J. M. Robertson, Short History of Freethought (London, 1914), I:443–44.
47. Cottret, Biography, 180-181.
48. Ibid.
49. Wendel, Calvin, 85.
50. Schaff, History, 644.
51. Bard Thompson, Humanists and Reformers: A History of the Renaissance and Reformation
(Grand Rapids, MI: Wm B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1996), 501.
52. Schaff, History, 519.
53. C. Gregg Singer, John Calvin: His Roots and Fruits (Abingdon Press, 1989), 19.
54. Otto Scott, The Great Christian Revolution (Windsor, NY: The Reformer Library, 1994),
46.
55. Charles Beard, The Reformation of the Sixteenth Century in Relation to Modern Thought
and Knowledge (London, 1885), 353; also see Edwin Muir, John Knox (London, 1920), 108.
56. Preserved Smith, The Age of the Reformation (New York, 1920), 174.
57. James R. White, The Potter’s Freedom (Amityville, NY: Calvary Press Publishing, 2000),
98.
58. R. C. Sproul, Chosen by God (Carol Stream, IL: Tyndale House Publishers, Inc., 1986),
72.
59. Durant, Civilization, VI:481.
60. Roland Bainton, Hunted Heretic: The Life of Michael Servetus (Boston: The Beacon Press,
1953), 144; cited in Durant, Civilization, VI:481. See also John Calvin, The Letters of John
Calvin (Carlisle, PA: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1980), 159.
61. John Calvin, dated August 20, 1553; quoted in Calvin, Letters.
62. Wallace, Calvin, Geneva, 77.
63. Durant, Civilization, VI: 483.
64. Ibid., 484.
65. Cottret, Biography, 78.
66. Calvin, Institutes, IV: xvi, 31.
67. Frend, Rise, 672.
68. Frederic W. Farrar, History of Interpretation (New York: E. P. Dutton and Co., 1886), 235–
38.
69. Ferdinand Buisson, Sebastien Castellion. Sa Vie et son oeuvre (1515-1563) (Paris:
Hachette, 1892), I:354.
70. Letter from N. Zurkinden to Calvin, February 10, 1554, cited in Cottret, 227.
71. J. W. Allen, History of Political Thought in the Sixteenth Century (London, 1951), 87.
72. R. Tudor Jones, The Great Reformation (Downer’s Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, n. d.),
140.
73. John Calvin to the Marquis de Poet, in The Works of Voltaire (Chicago: E. R. Dumont,
1901), 4:89; quoted in Vance, Other Side, 95, who gives two other sources for this quote.
74. Schaff, History, 8:690–91.
75. William Cunningham, The Reformers and the Theology of the Reformation (Carlisle, PA:
The Banner of Truth Trust, 1967), 316–17.
76. Scott, Revolution, 100.
77. Singer, Roots, 32.
78. William Jones, The History of the Christian Church (Church History Research and
Archives, 5th ed. 1983), 2:238.
6—Arminius, Dort, Westminster, and
Five Points
CALVINISM IS OFTEN contrasted with Arminianism, so named after
Jacobus Arminius (1560–1609). All those who do not fully agree with
Calvinists on all five points of TULIP (see below) are almost automatically
accused of being Arminians (not to be confused with ethnic Armenians),
yet many against whom this charge is laid have never heard the term.
Moreover, many Calvinists who malign Arminius have never read his
works and know nothing more than hearsay about him and his beliefs.
Ironically, this Dutch theologian started out as a Calvinist and even
studied under Beza in Calvin’s seminary in Geneva. He was a devout
follower of Christ and suffered much for his faith. His entire family was
murdered in his absence when Spanish Catholic troops enforcing the
Inquisition massacred the population of his hometown of Oudewater in
Holland.
Arminius was wrongfully charged with nearly every false doctrine ever
invented, from Socinianism (denial of predestination, of the true nature
of the Atonement and of the Trinity) to Pelagianism (the denial that
Adam’s sin affected his posterity, an undue emphasis upon free will,
salvation by grace plus works, and the possibility of sinless perfection).
Thus to be called an Arminian is a more serious charge than many of
either the accusers or the accused realize. So strong was Calvinism in
certain parts of Europe in Arminius’s day that to disagree with it was
tantamount to a denial of the gospel and even of God’s entire Word—and
it could cost one’s life. In England, for example, a 1648 Act of Parliament
made a rejection of Calvinistic infant baptism punishable by death.1
 Arminius had to bear the special onus that came upon any Protestant
of his day, especially in Holland, who dared to take a second look at
Calvinism from the Scriptures, a guilt sometimes attached to non-
Calvinists today. He was accused of having secret leanings toward Roman
Catholicism, in spite of his open denunciation of Catholic sacraments and
of the papacy as the kingdom of Antichrist. Upon visiting Rome to see the
Vatican for himself, Arminius reported that he saw “‘the mystery of
iniquity’ in a more foul, ugly, and detestable form than his imagination
could ever have conceived.”2 Some of those who have called themselves
Arminians promote serious heresy, having “adopted views quite contrary”
to what he taught,3 but Arminius himself was actually biblical in his beliefs
and far more Christlike in his life than was Calvin. Vance rightly declares
that “Arminius was just as orthodox on the cardinal doctrines of the
Christian Faith as any Calvinist, ancient or modern.”4
Character and Conduct Comparisons
Some Calvinists have criticized the first edition of this book for what
they call my alleged “caricature of Calvin [and] adoring portrait of
Arminius....” On the contrary, I have simply given the historic facts, which
none of my critics have been able to refute. In Debating Calvinism
(Multnomah, 2004), James White said he would “refute the calumnies [I]
launched at…Calvin [and] Augustine.” I’m still waiting. It is unconscionable
that Calvinists have swept under the rug Calvin’s un-Christlike conduct—
and have refused to acknowledge the facts when confronted with them.
There is no denying that Calvin was abusive, derisive, contemptuous,
insulting, disparaging, harsh, and sarcastic in his writings and opinions
expressed of others. Nor was this only in his language but frequently in
his actual treatment of many who dared to disagree with him—as we
have briefly shown.
In contrast, Arminius was a consistent Christian in his writings and kind
and considerate in his treatment of others. Nowhere in his writings or
actions does one find anything of the sarcasm, derision, and contempt for
contrary opinions that characterize Calvin’s writings. There was nothing
about Arminius to suggest revenge against one’s enemies or the use of
violence in the cause of Christ—much less the death sentence for heresy
that was enforced in Calvin’s Geneva.
In evaluating either of these two strong leaders, one must also
remember that, just as the Five Points of Calvinism were not formulated
by Calvin but by the Synod of Dort, so neither was it Arminius who
articulated the five points of Arminianism, but the Remonstrants who did
so after his death.
Arminius and His Teachings
Arminius stood uncompromisingly for sound doctrine and believed in
the infallibility and inerrancy of the Bible as inspired by God. He rejected
the Mass as a denial of “the truth and excellence of the sacrifice of
Christ.”5 He joined in calling the pope “the adulterer and pimp of the
Church, the false prophet...the enemy of God...the Antichrist...6 the man
of sin, the son of perdition, that most notorious outlaw7...[who] shall be
destroyed at the glorious advent of Christ,”8 and urged all true believers
to “engage in...the destruction of Popery, as they would...the kingdom of
Antichrist....”9 And he endeavored to “destroy Popery” by his lucid and
powerful preaching of the gospel and sound doctrine from God’s Word.
Arminius recognized and rejected the false doctrines of Augustine for
what they were. In contrast to Augustine, Arminius also rejected the
Apocrypha and authority of tradition. He believed in the eternal Sonship
of Christ, co-equal and co-eternal with the Father and the Holy Spirit,10
that Christ came to this earth as a man,11 that He was Jehovah of the Old
Testament12 who died for our sins, paying the full penalty by His one
sacrifice of Himself on the cross,13 that He was buried, rose again, and
ascended to heaven,14 that man is hopelessly lost and bound by sin, and
that salvation is by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone.15
 Arminius preached that salvation was entirely through Christ as a work
of grace, which God alone could do in the heart. He categorically denied
the false charges made against him of Pelagianism and Socinianism.16 He
also, with these words, defended himself against the false charge that he
taught the doctrine of falling away:
For I never…taught any thing contrary to the word of God, or to the Confession
and Catechism of the Belgic Churches. At no period have I ceased to make this
avowal, and I repeat it on this occasion….Yet since a sinister report, has for a long
time been industriously and extensively circulated about me…and since this
unfounded rumor has already operated most injuriously against me, I
importunately entreat to be favored with your gracious permission to make an
ingenuous and open declaration….

[Articles were circulated] as if they had been my composition: when, in reality…

they had neither proceeded from me, nor accorded with my sentiments, and, as
well as I could form a judgment they appeared to me to be at variance with the
word of God….

Twice I repeated this solemn asservation, and besought the brethren “not so
readily to attach credit to reports that were circulated concerning me, nor so easily
to listen to any thing that was represented as proceeding from me or that had
been rumored abroad to my manifest injury….”

My sentiments respecting the perseverance of the saints are, that those persons
who have been grafted into Christ by true faith, and have thus been made
partakers of his life-giving Spirit, possess sufficient powers [or strength] to fight
against Satan, sin, the world and their own flesh, and to gain the victory over these
enemies—yet not without the assistance of the grace of the same Holy Spirit. Jesus
Christ also by his Spirit assists them in all their temptations, and affords them the
ready aid of his hand; and, provided they stand prepared for the battle, implore his
help, and be not wanting to themselves, Christ preserves them from falling. So that
it is not possible for them, by any of the cunning craftiness or power of Satan, to
be either seduced or dragged out of the hands of Christ….

Though I here openly and ingenuously affirm, I never taught that a true believer
can, either totally or finally fall away from the faith, and perish; yet I will not
conceal, that there are passages of scripture which seem to me to wear this
aspect; and those answers to them which I have been permitted to see, are not of
such a kind as to approve themselves on all points to my understanding. On the
other hand, certain passages are produced for the contrary doctrine [of
 unconditional perseverance] which are worthy of much consideration….

I am not conscious to myself, of having taught or entertained any other sentiments

concerning the justification of man before God, than those which are held
unanimously by the Reformed and Protestant Churches, and which are in
complete agreement with their expressed opinions…yet my opinion is not so
widely different from [Calvin’s] as to prevent me from employing the signature of
my own hand in subscribing to those things which he has delivered on this subject
[of justification], in the third book of his Institutes; this I am prepared to do at any
time, and to give them my full approval…. For I am not of the congregation of
those who wish to have dominion over the faith of another man, but am only a
minister to believers, with the design of promoting in them an increase of
knowledge, truth, piety, peace and joy in Jesus Christ our Lord.”17

Staunch Calvinist R. K. McGregor Wright acknowledges that Arminius

solidly affirmed the eternal security of the saints, although that doctrine
was “…abandoned by his followers…a few years after his death.”18
Arminius is maligned and denounced today by Calvinists, while Augustine
is praised. Even while admitting that Arminius “affirmed dogmatically that
it is impossible for believers to decline from salvation,” Dillow insists that
“Arminius believes salvation can be lost.19 J. I. Packer quotes with
approval “Robert Traill, the Scottish Puritan, [who] wrote in 1692, ‘The
principles of Arminianism are the natural dictates of a carnal mind, which
is enmity both to the law of God, and to the gospel of Christ, and, next to
the dead sea of Popery (into which also this stream runs), have, since
Pelagius to this day, been the greatest plague of the Church of Christ, and
it is like will be till his second coming.’”20 Sheldon, however, says, “The
doctrinal system of Arminius, who is confessed on all hands to have been
a man of most exemplary spirit and life, was the Calvinistic system with
no further modification than necessarily resulted from rejecting the tenet
of absolute predestination.”21 A leading Arminian of the nineteenth
century summarized his understanding of that doctrine:
Arminianism teaches that God in Jesus Christ made provision fully for the salvation
of all those who, by repentance towards God and faith in our Lord Jesus Christ,
accept the terms [of the gospel], and all who do thus accept are eternally saved.22
 One could hardly argue with that statement. Yet Calvinists continue to
accuse Arminius of teaching that salvation could be lost—and to label as
“Arminians” anyone who disagrees with them. The same is often the case
today.
The Break with Calvinism
Arminius was as determined as Calvin to follow only the Lord and His
Word. That sincere desire got him into trouble because he considered
himself no more “bound to adopt all the private interpretations of the
Reformed”23 than those of the Roman Catholic Church.24 He concluded
from earnest study of the Scriptures that in some respects Calvinism was
simply not biblical. And he suffered false accusations and persecution for
that careful and prayerful opinion—as do non-Calvinists today.
Arminius was convinced from the Scriptures that those who will be in
heaven will be there because they believed the gospel, not because God
elected them to be saved, and regenerated them without any faith on
their part. He firmly believed and taught predestination as “an eternal
and gracious decree of God in Christ, by which He determines to justify
and adopt believers, and to endow them with life eternal, but to
condemn unbelievers and impenitent persons.”25 What E. H. Broadbent
in his classic The Pilgrim Church had to say about Arminius stands in stark
contrast to the slander the latter still suffers from Calvinists:
Brought up under the influence of Calvin’s teaching, Arminius—acknowledged by
all as a man of spotless character, in ability and learning unexcelled—was chosen
to write in defense of Calvinism of the less extreme kind, which was felt to be
endangered by the attacks made upon it. Studying the subject, however, he came
to see that much that he held was indefensible; that it made God the author of sin,
set limits to His saving grace, left the majority of mankind without hope or
possibility of salvation.

He saw from the Scriptures that the atoning work of Christ was for all, and that
man’s freedom of choice is a part of the divine decree. Coming back to the original
teaching of Scripture and faith of the Church, he avoided the extremes into which
both parties to the long controversy had fallen. His statement of what he had
 come to believe involved him personally in conflicts which so affected his spirit as
to shorten his life [he died at the age of 49, Calvin at 55]. His teaching took a vivid
and evangelical form later, in the Methodist revival.26

Fisk agrees that “Arminianism comes from the name of a man who
first embraced the Calvinistic system, was called upon to defend it against
the opposition, and who upon further study came around to a more
moderate position.”27 McNeill, himself a Presbyterian, is honest enough
to say that Arminius “does not repudiate predestination, but condemns
supralapsarianism [that God from eternity past predestined the non-elect
to sin and to suffer eternal damnation] as subversive of the gospel.”28
Earle E. Cairns explains the major differences between the two systems:
His [Arminius’s] attempt to modify Calvinism so that...God might not be
considered the author of sin, nor man an automaton in the hands of God, brought
down upon him the opposition....Both Arminius and Calvin taught that man, who
inherited Adam’s sin, is under the wrath of God. But Arminius believed that man
was able to initiate his salvation after God had granted him the primary grace to
enable his will to cooperate with God....29 Arminius accepted election but believed
that the decree to save some and damn others had “its foundation in the
foreknowledge of God.”30 Thus election was conditional rather than
unconditional....Arminius also believed that Christ’s death was sufficient for all but
that it was efficient only for believers.31 Calvin limited the atonement to those
elected to salvation. Arminius also taught that men might resist the saving grace of
God,32 whereas Calvin maintained that grace was irresistible.33

The earnest desire of Arminius had simply been to mitigate Calvinism’s

extremes. Of Arminius, Newman says, “He was recognized as among the
ablest and most learned men of his time. His expository sermons were so
lucid, eloquent, and well delivered as to attract large audiences. He was
called upon from time to time to write against opponents of Calvinism,
which he did in a moderate and satisfactory way. When pestilence was
raging in 1602, he distinguished himself by heroic service.”34
In the early days, no one lashed out more viciously at “Arminians” than
John Owen, who referred to “the poison of Arminianism…hewing at the
very root of Christianity.”35 This effort reached its peak in his lengthy
treatise against “the doctrines of Arminius” titled A Display of
Arminianism, first published in 1642 by order of the Committee of the
House of Commons in Parliament for the Regulating of Printing and
Publishing of Books. Seemingly lost in the earnest polemics was one
cautionary word in the “Prefatory Note,” which went unheeded then as
now: “It may be questioned if Owen sufficiently discriminates the
doctrine of Arminius from the full development which his system, after
his death, received in the hands of his followers.”36
Arminianism and State Churches
Arminius’s moderate view attracted a large following. Many Protestant
pastors, uncomfortable with the extremes of Calvinism and with its
militancy against those who disagreed, began to preach the same
modified Calvinism as Arminius and received considerable opposition
from Calvinists. The latter, following Augustine’s teaching and the
practice of Rome, saw church and state as partners, with the state
enforcing sanctions against whomever the church considered to be
heretics—an intolerance that Arminius and his followers opposed.
McGregor writes that “the entire process of the Reformation took place
in the context of state churches, with secular power supporting the
Reformers and protecting their gains.37
This great error was the legacy of Constantine, the first to forbid
anyone outside the established church to meet for religious purposes and
the first to confiscate the property of those who did. Believing that
baptism was “the salvation of God...the seal which confers
immortality...the seal of salvation,”38 he had waited until just before his
death to be baptized so as not to risk sinning thereafter and losing his
salvation. Later, Emperor Theodosius issued an edict making “the religion
which was taught by St. Peter to the Romans, which has been faithfully
preserved by tradition”39 the official faith of the empire. As noted earlier;
adherents were to be called “Catholic Christians,” and all others were
forbidden to meet in their churches.40 One historian has explained the
tragic effect for the church:
The Scriptures were now no longer the standard of the Christian faith...[but] the
decisions of fathers and councils…religion propagated not by the apostolic
methods of persuasion, accompanied with the meekness and gentleness of Christ,
but by imperial edicts and decrees; nor were gainsayers to be brought to
conviction by…reason and scripture, but persecuted and destroyed.41

Such was the official relationship between church and state that Calvin
inherited from Augustine, enforced in Geneva, and which the Calvinists,
wherever possible, carried on and used to enforce their will upon those
who differed with them. In league with princes, kings, and emperors, the
Roman Catholic Church had for centuries controlled all of Europe. The
Reformation created a new state church across Europe, in competition
with Rome, which was either Lutheran or Calvinist. The latter claim the
name “Reformed.”
The Presbyterian Church in Scotland, the Church of England, and the
Dutch Reformed Church, which persecuted the Arminians in Holland,
were all Calvinistic state churches. Tragically, they followed Constantine,
Augustine, and Calvin in the unbiblical and grandiose ambition of
imposing their brand of Christianity upon all, in partnership with the
state. As David Gay points out:
In the Institutes Calvin said that civil government is assigned to foster and maintain
the external worship of God, to defend sound doctrine and the condition of the
church. He dismissed the Anabaptists as stupid fanatics because they argued that
these matters are the business of the church, not the civil authorities.
Nevertheless, Calvin was wrong; they were right.... He was writing from the
viewpoint of Constantine, not the New Testament....42

Synods, Assemblies, Councils, and Confessions

Those who disagree with Calvinism today on the basis of their
understanding of God’s Word are accused of abandoning, ignoring, or
even defying the great confessions and established creeds of the church.
We must ask, “Which church?” Roman Catholics also refer to “the
Church” in a similar manner, but millions of true believers were not part
of it for centuries before the Reformation, refusing to bow to the popes
or to submit to Rome’s heresies. Calvinists today, looking back upon the
first century or so of the Reformation, refer to “the church” in much the
same way, meaning state churches carrying on what Calvin began in
Geneva, with those who disagree looked down upon as heretics who
reject “the Reformed faith”— thus equating Calvinism with the
Reformation.
Calvin diligently persecuted even to the death those who disagreed
with his extreme views on sovereignty and predestination. Yet he
tolerated the many heresies of Augustine—and even adopted some. We
find only praise in his writings for this man who held to so much that was
unbiblical. In fact, Calvin looked to Augustine as the authority justifying
his own erroneous beliefs and practices.
It must be remembered that the Reformation creeds and confessions
were formulated not by agreement among all Christians but by either the
Lutheran or the Calvinist segment alone. The Synod of Dort and the
Westminster Assembly, referred to by Calvinists as authoritative
declarations of Christian truth, were dominated by Calvinists and forced
Calvinism as the official state religion upon everyone.
So the accusation that one fails to follow these “great Reformed
confessions” is merely another way of saying that one disagrees with
Calvinism! It also furthers the false impression that Calvinism was the
official belief held by all of the Reformers. Concerning the five points of
Calvinism, Hodges writes, “None of these ideas has any right to be called
normative Protestant theology. None has ever been held by a wide cross-
section of Christendom. Most importantly, none of them is biblical...all of
them lie outside the proper parameters of Christian orthodoxy.”43
The Five Arminian Points
Arminius was part of the state Dutch Reformed Church, as were the
leaders who carried on his beliefs after his premature death in 1609.
Inevitably, open controversy developed over predestination and whether
the Belgic Confession and Heidelberg Catechism should be reviewed for
possible revision. To discuss the issues, forty-six Arminian ministers met
privately in Gouda, Holland, on January 14, 1610. They drew up and
signed a Remonstrance (protest) against Calvinism, stating that its
doctrines were “not contained in the Word of God nor in the Heidelberg
Catechism, and are unedifying—yea, dangerous—and should not be
preached to Christian people.”44
The Remonstrance comprised five brief paragraphs that became
known as the five points of Arminianism. In summary they stated:

1. That God from eternity past determined to save all who

believe in Jesus and to “leave the incorrigible and
unbelieving in sin and under wrath....”
2. That Christ died for and obtained redemption and
forgiveness of sins for all, but these benefits are effective
only for those who believe on Christ.
3. That man cannot “think, will or do anything that is truly
good,” and that includes “saving faith,” but must be
regenerated.
4. That God’s grace is absolutely essential for salvation, but
that it may be resisted.
5. That those truly saved through faith in Christ are
empowered by the Holy Spirit to resist sin; but whether
they could fall away from the faith “must be more
particularly determined out of the Holy Scripture, before
 we ourselves can teach it with full persuasion of our
minds.”

The Calvinist response came a few months later in the form of a

Counter-Remonstrance, which contained seven articles. The second and
third points have been combined under the heading of Unconditional
Election, with the sixth and seventh points combined under Perseverance
of the Saints, resulting in what has become known as the Five Points of
Calvinism.
Vance summarizes this declaration well as follows:

1. Because the whole race has fallen in Adam and become

corrupt and powerless to believe, God draws out of
condemnation those whom he has chosen unto salvation,
passing by the others.
2. The children of believers, as long as they do not manifest
the contrary, are to be reckoned among God’s elect.
3. God has decreed to bestow faith and perseverance and
thus save those whom he has chosen to salvation.
4. God delivered up his Son Jesus Christ to die on the cross to
save only the elect.
5. The Holy Spirit, externally through the preaching of the
Gospel, works a special grace internally in the hearts of the
elect, giving them power to believe.
6. Those whom God has decreed to save are supported and
preserved by the Holy Spirit so that they cannot finally lose
their true faith.
7. True believers do not carelessly pursue the lusts of the
flesh, but work out their own salvation in the fear of the
Lord.45
The Growing Controversy
The Counter-Remonstrance was in turn answered by The Opinion of
the Remonstrants. This was a far more lengthy document which went into
great detail to establish what the Remonstrants “in conscience have thus
far considered and still consider to be in harmony with the Word of
God....” It contained lengthy objections to Calvinism under four headings,
the main points of which are summarized in the following excerpts:
From Section I (10 paragraphs):
3. God…has not ordained the fall…has not deprived Adam of
the necessary and sufficient grace, does also not…bring
some [men] unto [eternal] life, but deprive others of the
benefit of life....
4. God has not decreed without intervening actual sins to
leave by far the greater part of men, excluded from all hope
of salvation, in the fall.
5. God has ordained that Christ should be the atonement for
the sins of the whole world, and by virtue of this decree He
has decided to justify and to save those who believe in Him,
and to provide men with the means necessary and
sufficient unto faith...
6. No one is rejected from eternal life nor from the means
sufficient thereto by any antecedent absolute decree....

From Section II (4 paragraphs):

1. The price of salvation, which Christ offered to God…paid
for all and every man, according to…the grace of God the
Father; and therefore no one is definitely excluded from…
the benefits of the death of Christ by an absolute and
antecedent decree of God.
 3. Although Christ has merited reconciliation with God and
the forgiveness of sins for all men…no one becomes an
actual partaker of the benefits of the death of Christ except
by faith....

From Section III (12 paragraphs):

5. The efficacious grace by which anyone is converted is not
irresistible, and although God through the Word and the
inner operation of His Spirit so influences the will that He
both bestows the power to believe and…indeed causes man
to believe, nevertheless man is able of himself to despise
this grace, not to believe, and thus to perish through his
own fault.
6. Although according to the altogether free will of God the
disparity of divine grace may be very great, nevertheless
the Holy Spirit bestows, or is ready to bestow, as much
grace upon all men and every man to whom God’s Word is
preached as is sufficient for the furtherance of the sufficient
grace unto faith and conversion whom God is said to be
willing to save according to the decree of absolute election,
but also they who are not actually converted.
12. We also hold to be false and horrible that God should in a
hidden manner incite men to the sin which He openly
forbids; that those who sin do not act contrary to the true
will of God…that it is according to justice a crime worthy of
death to do God’s will.

From Section IV (8 paragraphs):

3. True believers can fall from true faith and fall into such
sins as cannot be consistent with true and justifying faith,
 and not only can this happen, but it also not infrequently
occurs.
4. True believers can through their own fault…finally fall
away and go lost.
5. Nevertheless we do not believe, though true believers
sometimes fall into grave and conscience-devastating sins,
that they immediately fall from all hope of conversion, but
we acknowledge that it can happen that God according to
His abundant mercy, again calls them to conversion through
His grace....
6. Therefore we heartily reject the following doctrines, which
are daily spread abroad among the people in public
writings, as being harmful to piety and good morals;
namely: 1) That true believers cannot sin deliberately, but
only out of ignorance and weakness. 2) That true believers
through no sins can fall from the grace of God. 3) That a
thousand sins, yea, all the sins of the whole world, cannot
render election invalid; when it is added to this that all men
are obligated to believe that they are chosen unto
salvation, and therefore cannot fall from election, we
present for consideration what a wide door that opens for
carnal certainty. 4) That to believers and to the elect no
sins, however great and grave they may be, are
imputed....5) That true believers, having fallen into corrupt
heresies, into grave and shameful sins, such as adultery and
murder, on account of which the Church, according to the
institution of Christ, is obligated to testify that she cannot
tolerate them in her external fellowship, and that they shall
have no part in the kingdom of Christ, unless they repent,
nevertheless cannot totally and finally fall from the faith.
8. A true believer can and must be certain for the future that
 he, granted intervening, watching, praying, and other holy
exercises, can persevere in the true faith, and that the
grace of God to persevere will never be lacking to him; but
we do not see how he may be assured that he will never
neglect his duty in the future, but in the works of faith,
piety and love, as befits a believer, persevere in this school
of Christian warfare. Neither do we deem it necessary that
the believer should be certain of this.46

These four headings (which clearly departed from what Arminius had
taught) were understood to contain five points, which the Calvinists at
the Synod of Dort answered with what has become known as the Five
Points of Calvinism. The major difference is obvious: the Arminians put
the blame for man’s eternal punishment upon man himself for rejecting
the gospel by his own free will, though he could have accepted it through
God’s gracious enabling; whereas the Calvinists laid sin itself and the
damnation of man totally upon God, who simply predestined everything
to turn out that way. A. W. Tozer, respected by many Calvinists, declared,
“So when man exercises his freedom [of choice], he is fulfilling the
sovereignty of God, not canceling it out.”47
The State of the Netherlands, in its concern for unity among its
citizens, ordered both parties to meet to iron out their differences. Six
leaders from each side met in the Hague on March 31, 1611, but failed to
reach an agreement. While the Arminians pleaded for tolerance, the
Calvinists were determined to convene a national conference to have
their opponents declared heretics. Of course, the view at that time was
that the state would exact the prescribed penalties upon heretics, up to
and including death.
The Great Synod of Dort (Dordrecht)
The persisting theological differences eventually involved the
government in an internal battle between political rivals. The Calvinists
won out, Prince Maurice siding with them. Magistrates sympathetic to
the Arminians were replaced. This later paved the way for the national
synod, which, after letters sent inviting foreign representatives, was then
convened at Dordrecht on November 13, 1618, and lasted into May of the
following year.
Convinced that they were standing for truth, each Calvinist delegate
took an oath to follow only the Word of God and to “aim at the glory of
God, the peace of the Church, and especially the preservation of the
purity of doctrine. So help me, my Savior, Jesus Christ! I beseech him to
assist me by his Holy Spirit.”48
Calvinists ever since have hailed Dort as a gathering of history’s most
godly leaders, who sincerely followed their oath. In John Wesley’s
opinion, however, Dort was as impartial as the Council of Trent.49 In fact,
Dort had been called by state officials favoring the Calvinists for the sole
purpose of supporting the Calvinists and condemning the Arminians, so it
can hardly be considered an impartial tribunal, and certainly did not
represent a consensus among true believers.
Moreover, Baptists who today point to Dort as the articulation of what
they believe are, as Vance points out,50 “not only conforming to a Dutch
Reformed State-Church creed, they are following Augustine, for as the
Reformed theologian Herman Hanko asserts, ‘Our fathers at Dordrecht
knew well that these truths set forth in the Canons could not only be
traced back to the Calvin Reformation; they could be traced back to the
theology of St. Augustine.... For it was Augustine who had originally
defined these truths.’51 Custance insists that the Five Points were
‘formulated implicitly by Augustine.’”52
The Arminians were not allowed to plead their case as equals, but
were removed from the status of delegates to that of defendants, and
were summarily expelled from the synod and publicly denounced. After
Dort, the Remonstrants were asked to recant or be banished. More than
200 Arminian ministers were removed from their pulpits and many were
exiled. There was an attempt to establish a harsh Calvinistic theocracy
where only Calvinism could be publicly proclaimed, but it lasted only a
short time. It was not, however, until 1625 that persecution of Arminians
officially ceased.53
Cairns calls the Great Synod of Dort “an international Calvinistic
assembly” in which the Arminians “came before the meeting in the role of
defendants.” Calvinists have called Dort “a symbol of the triumph of
orthodox Calvinism in the Netherlands.”54 Louis Berkhof declares, “Five
thoroughly Calvinistic Canons, in which the doctrines of the Reformation,
and particularly of Calvin, on the disputed points are set forth with
clearness and precision.”55
Ever since Dort, Calvinists have hailed these Canons as “a bulwark, a
defense, of the truth of God’s Word concerning our salvation.”56 We have
already quoted a variety of Calvinist leaders, to the effect that Calvinism’s
Five Points are the gospel. Such opinions should cause concern in the
church today in view of the resurgence of Calvinism through the efforts of
esteemed evangelical leaders.
Fruits of the Synod of Dort
In evaluating the Synod of Dort and the Five Points of Calvinism that it
pronounced, one cannot avoid recognition of the political nature of the
gathering. Christ had drawn a clear line of separation between the things
that are Caesar’s and…“the things that are God’s” (Mark 12:17). In tragic
contrast, Calvinistic church leaders were acting as instruments of Caesar
(the state)—and the state acted on their behalf to punish their
opponents. That Calvinists together with the state falsely charged,
persecuted, imprisoned, and executed some of the Arminian leaders must
also be a consideration in evaluating this entire procedure and its fruits—
as well as Calvinism itself.
 Although both the Arminians and Calvinists at this time were in
agreement as to the church-state alliance, the Arminians had no desire to
use the state to enforce their views upon their opponents, but only to
protect their own freedom of conscience and practice. Even Calvinists
admit that “the divines who composed the Synod of Dort generally held
that the civil magistrate was entitled to inflict pains and penalties as a
punishment for heresy” and that, in contrast, the Arminians advocated
“toleration and forbearance in regard to differences of opinion upon
religious subjects.”57
Consider, for example, the fate of the four main leaders of the
Arminian movement. John Uytenbogaert, who had studied at Geneva
under Calvin’s successor, Beza, and served as chaplain to Prince Maurice
(son and successor of William of Orange), was exiled after the Synod of
Dort and had his goods confiscated. Simon Episcopius, a professor of
theology and chief spokesman for the Arminians at Dort, was banished.
John Van Oldenbarnevelt, who was advocate-general of Holland and a
national hero for helping William of Orange negotiate the Union of
Utrecht, was falsely charged with treason and was beheaded. Hugo
Grotius, a famed lawyer known worldwide for his expertise in
international law, was sentenced to life in prison but escaped and later
became Swedish ambassador to Paris.
What biblical basis could anyone propose for exacting such penalties
for a disagreement over doctrine? If the Calvinists could be so wrong in so
much that is so important, might they not also be wrong in some basic
theological assumptions? Yet in spite of a complete misunderstanding of
and disobedience concerning such vital and fundamental New Testament
teachings as separation of church and state (John 15:14–21; 16:33; 1 John
2:15–17) and nonimposition of belief by force, these men are hailed as
“great divines” and the doctrine they forcefully imposed on others is
embraced as the truth of God—now called “the Reformed faith” and “the
doctrines of grace”—to be accepted by all today. The church, once
persecuted, now persecuted fellow believers!
The Westminster Assembly
Dort was followed in 1643 by a similar prestigious gathering of
“divines” in England. The Westminster Assembly was also under the
auspices of the state. That Assembly formulated The Westminster
Confession of Faith, which has been called “the most systematically
complete statement of Calvinism ever devised.”58 Vance reminds us that
“Due to the close relationship between Church and state that existed at
the time, the acceptance of Calvinism in England, culminating in the
Westminster Assembly, is deeply intertwined with the civil and religious
history of England.”59 A brief word about that history is therefore in
order.
In the two preceding centuries, England had gone through a long
struggle to escape Rome. At times she made progress, at other times she
fell back into bondage. Henry VII had been proclaimed king in 1486 by a
papal bull of Pope Innocent VIII. The Latin Vulgate was the official Bible.
Wycliffe’s Bible was suppressed, and the Provincial Council at Oxford in
1408 had forbidden the translation and printing of “any text of Holy
Scripture into the English or other language....”60 Henry VIII, who had
written to Erasmus from London in 1511 that “many heretics furnish a
daily holocaust,”61 at the behest of Cromwell reversed himself and
encouraged the Bible in English to be opened in every house and parish
church—but a year before his death banned “the New Testament of
Tyndale’s or Coverdale’s translation.”62
During his brief reign, King Edward VI turned England away from Rome
and welcomed Reformed theologians from the Continent into England,
giving Calvinism a foothold there that it would never relinquish. In the
late sixteenth century, the University of Cambridge became a Calvinist
stronghold. Edward’s sister, Mary I, daughter of Henry VIII, known as
“Bloody Mary,” succeeding him, brought England back under popery,
forbade possession of any Protestant books, and burned at the stake
hundreds who would not accept Rome’s doctrines.
After Mary’s death, the Geneva Bible came into use. Elizabeth I
expelled the Jesuits from England. Under her, the Thirty-Nine Articles of
the Church of England (mildly Calvinistic, but rejecting limited atonement)
were formulated; they remain the official creed of that church to this day.
John Knox held forth in Scotland, while the Puritans rose in England, only
to be forced to conform by King James I, who gave us the King James
Bible in 1611.
Charles I succeeded James. There were debates in Parliament over
Calvinism, with its proponents gaining the upper hand. The Long
Parliament ordered the printing of A Display of Arminianism by John
Owen, which denounced Arminianism and upheld Limited Atonement. In
the context of this tumultuous background and the con nued
partnership of the church with the state, the Westminster Assembly was
convened by Parliament. The Parliament “waged a civil war against the
king…abolished episcopacy, ejected two thousand royalist ministers…
summoned the Westminster Assembly, executed Archbishop Laud, and
eventually executed the king himself in 1649.”63
Once again the deck was stacked. Westminster was not a gathering of
those representing all true believers, but only of the Calvinists, who had
gained the upper hand in Parliament. Today’s boast is that “all of the
Westminster divines were Calvinists.”64 Furthermore, as Vance wisely
comments, “…like the Synod of Dort, the presence of government officials
at an ostensibly religious assembly raises some questions about its
legitimacy.”65 Expenses of the members were borne by the State. Even
Calvinists admit, “The Assembly was the creature of Parliament and was
never able to escape from Parliamentary supervision.”66
Logan confesses, “The Assembly…was clearly and completely
subservient to the political authority of Parliament.”67 De Witt also
declares that the Assembly “was answerable, not to the King of Kings, but
to the Lords and Commons of the English Parliament.”68 Schaff points out
that “the Assembly...clung to the idea of a national state church, with a
uniform system of doctrine, worship, and discipline, to which every man,
woman, and child in three kingdoms should conform.”69 Bettany writes:
In 1643 also the Westminster Assembly of divines was convened by Parliament to
reform the Church of England “on the basis of the word of God, and to bring it into
a nearer agreement with the Church of Scotland and the Reformed Churches on
the Continent.” The Scotch commissioners now required, as the price of their
cooperation with the English Parliament against Charles, the adoption of the
Solemn League and Covenant [drawn by a Scottish revolutionary committee
requiring signers to extirpate prelacy in all its forms in Scotland, Ireland and
England]....

With this weapon…and the test of loyalty to the king, ejections of Episcopalians
from their livings…amounted to some thousands.... So many vacancies were
created that they could not be filled.... Finally the Westminster Assembly was
ordered to draw up a scheme for ordination.... The Westminster Assembly
laboured to evolve an acceptable scheme of Presbyterianism, the Independent
members, however…proposing toleration for all sects....

The question soon arose…should presbyteries have the power of including or

excluding members, or should each Independent congregation wield that power?
Parliament undertook to settle the whole matter by ordaining that all persons
aggrieved by the action of a presbytery might appeal to Parliament.... Cromwell in
vain tried to reconcile Independents and Presbyterians. The latter predominated in
Parliament, and in 1648 showed their continued intolerance by enacting that all
who denied God, or the Trinity, or the atonement, or the canonical books of
Scripture, or the resurrection of the dead and a final judgment were to ‘suffer the
pains of death, as in case of felony, without benefit of clergy.’... A long catalogue of
heresies of the second class was specified, to be punished by imprisonment....70

Lessons to Be Learned
The so-called Reformation synods and councils and the confessions
and decrees they generated, which many Calvinists today honor as stating
the true doctrine of Christ, were promoted by an established state church
in partnership with the civil rulers—contrary to the Word of God. Always
the overriding concern was for unity, and those who did not agree with
the majority position were silenced, persecuted, imprisoned, banished,
and sometimes executed.
Just as the Roman Catholic Church had persecuted and killed those
who did not agree with her down through the centuries, so the newly
established Protestant churches began to do the same. Anabaptists, for
example, were persecuted and killed by both Catholics and Protestants
because the latter still believed in Augustine’s baptism of infants into the
family of God, with its magical powers of regeneration—a Roman Catholic
heresy that clung to Luther and Calvin and that clings to most of their
followers to this day.
History clearly records that these were the men and the motives
behind the established creeds and confessions. Unquestionably, their
modus operandi followed in the footsteps of Constantine. Not a true
Christian, and thus not interested in truth but in the “unity” of the
empire, Constantine used “Christianity” to that end. Under him, the
church, once persecuted by the world, became the persecutor. True
Christians were still the ones being persecuted. The only change was that
an oppressive church had joined the world to persecute those not
subscribing to its dogmas.
The new persecution was done in the name of Christ but was the very
antithesis of all Christ taught and lived, and for which He died. Following
in the footsteps of Rome, which in most matters they opposed, the
Protestant churches continued the same practice. We cannot, and dare
not, ignore these facts in evaluating “Reformation” creeds and
statements of faith that came from councils and synods called by the
state for the sake of unity.
Augustine had been happy to use the state in an unbiblical partnership
to enforce “faith” upon heretics. Driven by the same belief, Calvin used
the same system in Geneva. Nor can one deny the obvious relationship
between this forcing of “faith” upon the unwilling, and the two major
doctrines of both Augustine and Calvin—Total Depravity and double
Predestination with their concomitant denial of any genuine choice for
mankind with regard to God and salvation. Freedom of conscience was
the natural victim, a form of oppression that even the unsaved can
tolerate only for so long.
Defining Calvinism
In spite of many differences of opinion among Calvinists today,
Calvinism is generally explained by the acronym, TULIP. Philip F. Congdon
writes that “a tulip is a beautiful flower, but bad theology. The fruit of the
flower is appealing; the fruit of the theology is appalling…works, as an
inevitable result, are necessary for salvation. To be fair, Classical Calvinists
usually object to this by describing the gospel message as not ‘faith +
works = justification,’ but ‘faith = justification + works’.... This is no more
than a word game. It is best seen in the old Calvinist saying: ‘You are
saved by faith alone, but the faith that saves you is never alone....’”71
Some readers may have never heard of TULIP. Others, though knowing
that it has something to do with Calvinism, find it difficult to remember
what each letter stands for. Here, in brief, is a summary of common
explanations. In each case, in order to avoid the charge that they are not
properly stated, they are presented in the words of the major Calvinistic
creeds or confessions:
“T” stands for Total Depravity: that man, because he is spiritually dead to God “in
trespasses and in sins” (Ephesians 2:1; Colossians 2:13), is incapable of responding
to the gospel, though able to make other moral choices.

The Westminster Confession of Faith declares, “Our first parents…became dead in

sin, and wholly defiled in all the faculties and parts of soul and body…wholly
inclined to all evil.... Man, by his fall into a state of sin, hath wholly lost all ability of
will to any spiritual good accompanying salvation…being altogether averse from
that good, and dead to sin, is not able by his own strength, to convert himself, or
to prepare himself thereunto.”72

“U” stands for Unconditional Election: that God decides on no basis whatsoever
but by the mystery of His will to save some, called the elect, and to allow all others
to go to hell, even though He could save all mankind if He so desired.

The Canons of Dort declare, “That some receive the gift of faith from God, and
others do not receive it proceeds from God’s eternal decree...[by] which decree,
he graciously softens the hearts of the elect, however obstinate, and inclines them
to believe, while he leaves the non-elect in his just judgment to their own
wickedness and obduracy.”73

“L” stands for Limited Atonement: that the elect are the only ones for whom
Christ died in payment of the penalty for their sins, and that His death is
efficacious for no others, nor was intended to be.

Dort declares: “For this was the sovereign counsel, and most gracious will and
purpose of God the Father, that…the most precious death of his Son should extend
to all the elect…all those, and those only, who were from eternity chosen to
salvation…he purchased by his death.”74

“I” stands for Irresistible Grace: that God is able to cause whomever He will to
respond to the gospel; that without this enabling, no one could do so; and that He
only provides this Irresistible Grace to the elect and damns the rest.

The Westminster Confession states: “All those whom God hath predestinated unto
life, and those only, he is pleased, in his appointed and accepted time, effectually
to call, by his Word and Spirit, out of that state of sin and death…effectually
drawing them to Jesus Christ; yet so, as they come most freely, being made willing
by his grace.”75

“P” stands for Perseverance of the Saints: that God will not allow any of the elect to
fail to persevere in living a life consistent with the salvation that He has sovereignly
given them.

The Westminster Confession states: “They, whom God hath accepted in his
Beloved, effectually called, and sanctified by His Spirit, can neither totally nor
finally fall away from the state of grace, but shall certainly persevere therein to the
end, and be eternally saved. This perseverance of the saints depends not upon
their own free will, but upon the immutability of the decree of election.76
 William Cunningham speaks for most Calvinists when he writes that
“No synod or council was ever held in the church, whose decisions, all
things considered, are entitled to more deference and respect [than the
Synod of Dort].”77
With all due respect, I would suggest that the Bible alone is our
authority, not the beliefs of either John Calvin or Jacobus Arminius, or any
council, synod, assembly, or creed. In the following pages, the points of
TULIP are compared with the Bible, one point at a time, and in order.

1. George Park Fisher, History of the Christian Church, (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons,
1902), 406.
2. Jacobus Arminius, The Works of James Arminius, trans. James and William Nichols (Grand
Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1986), I:26.
3. From the old Edinburgh Encyclopedia (Scotland: n. p.,n. d.); quoted in Arminius, Works,
1:306.
4. Laurence M. Vance, The Other Side of Calvinism (Pensacola, FL: Vance Publications, rev.
ed., 1999), 126.
5. Arminius, Works, 2:243–44.
6. Ibid., 2:264–65.
7. Ibid., 1:298.
8. Ibid., 299.
9. Ibid.,644.
10. Ibid., 2:115–18, 138, 141–43, 145, etc.
11. Ibid.,379.
12. Ibid., 141.
13. Ibid., 443
14. Ibid., 387–88.
15. Ibid., 157, 256; 1:659–60.
16. Ibid., 1:102.
17. The Works of James Arminius, Vols. 1 & 2, Translated from the Latin by James Nichols:
“The Apology or Defense of James Arminius, against certain theological articles extensively
 distributed and currently circulated…in the low countries and beyond…in which both
Arminius, and Adrian Borrius, a minister of Leyden, are rendered suspected of novelty and
heterodoxy, of error and heresy, on the subject of religion,” probably published early in 1609
shortly before his death. See also, A Declaration of the Sentiments of Arminius—on
Predestination, Divine Providence, the freedom of the will, the grace of God, the Divinity of
the Son of God, and the justification of man before God. Delivered before the states of
Holland, at the Hague, on the thirtieth of October, 1608.
18. R. K. McGregor Wright, No Place for Sovereignty: What’s Wrong with Freewill Theism
(Downer’s Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1996), 29.
19. Joseph C. Dillow, The Reign of the Servant Kings: A Study of Eternal Security and the
Final Significance of Man (Haysville, NC: Schoettle Publishing Co., 2nd ed. 1993), 266
20. J. I. Packer, “Sola Fide: The Reformed Doctrine of Justification” (http://www.the-
highway.com/Justification_Packer.html).
21. Henry C. Sheldon, History of Christian Doctrine (New York: Harper and Bros., 2nd ed.
1895), 2:34–35.
22. George L. Curtiss, Arminianism in History (New York: Cranston and Curts, 1894), 10.
23. Arminius, Works, 1:103.
24. Ibid., 2:81.
25. Ibid., 623.
26. E. H. Broadbent, The Pilgrim Church (Port Colborne, ON: Gospel Folio Press, reprint
1999), 255.
27. Samuel Fisk, Calvinistic Paths Retraced (Raleigh, NC: Biblical Evangelism Press, 1985),
120.
28. John T. McNeil, Makers of the Christian Tradition (San Francisco: Harper and Row, 1964),
221.
29. Arminius, Works, 1:329; 2:472–73.
30. Ibid., 1:248.
31. Ibid., 316–17.
32. Ibid., 1:254; 2:497.
33. Earle E. Cairns, Christianity Through the Centuries: A History of the Christian Church,
revised and enlarged ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1981), 325.
34. Albert H. Newman, A Manual of Church History (Philadelphia, PA: American Baptist
Publication Society, 1933), 2:340.
35. John Owen, A Display of Arminianism, “To the right honourable, The Lords and Gentlemen
of the Committee for Religion,” and “To the Christian Reader” in The Works of John Owen,
ed. William Goold (The Banner of Truth Trust, 1978) X: 7-8.
36. Ibid., 4
37. McGregor, No Place, 28
38. Eusebius Pamphilius of Caesaria, advisor to Constantine, The Life of Constantine (n. p., c.
A.D. 335), 3.62.
39. Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church (New York: Charles Scribner, 1910; Grand
Rapids, MI: Wm B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., reprint 1959), 142.
40. Ibid.
41. William Jones, The History of the Christian Church (Church History Research and
Archives, 5th ed. 1983), 1:306.
42. David Gay, Battle for the Church: 1517–1644 (Lowestoft, UK: Brachus, 1997), 44.
43. Zane C. Hodges, “The New Puritanism, Pt. 2: Michael S. Horton: Holy War with Unholy
Weapons,” Journal of the Grace Evangelical Society, Spring 1994, 6:11.
44. Curtiss, Arminianism., 69.
45. Vance, Other Side, 151–52.
46. From “The Opinions of the Remonstrants” (presented at Dordrecht, Holland), 1619.
47. A. W. Tozer, “The Sovereignty of God” (Camp Hill, PA: Christian Publications, 1997),
Audiotape.
48. Quoted in full in Vance, Other Side, 153–54.
49. Quoted in Arminius, Works, I: lxiii.
50. Vance, Other Side, 158–59.
51. Herman Hanko, “Total Depravity,” in Herman Hanko, Homer C. Hoeksema, and Gise J.
Van Baren, The Five Points of Calvinism (Grandville, MI: Reformed Free Publishing
Association, 1976), 10.
52. Arthur C. Custance, The Sovereignty of Grace (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and
Reformed Publishing Co., 1979), 71.
53. Cairns, Christianity, 325.
54. Cited in Vance, Other Side, 148.
55. Louis Berkhof, The History of Christian Doctrines (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House,
1937), 152.
56. Homer Hoeksema, The Voice of Our Fathers (Grandville, MI: Reformed Free Publishing
Association, 1980), 114.
57. William Cunningham, The Reformers and the Theology of the Reformation (Carlisle, PA:
Banner of Truth Trust, 1967), 2:381; cited in Vance, Other Side, 153.
58. M. Howard Rienstra, “The History and Development of Calvinism in Scotland and
England,” in Bratt, ed., The Rise and Development of Calvinism, 110; cited in Vance, Other
Side, 159.
59. Vance, Other Side.
60. Alfred W. Pollard, ed., Records of the English Bible (Oxford: Oxford University Press,
 1911), 1.
61. H. Maynard Smith, Pre-Reformation England (New York: Russell and Russell, 1963), 289.
62. Paul L. Hughes and James F. Larkin, eds., Tudor Royal Proclamations (New Haven, CT:
Yale University Press, 1964), 1:374.
63. Vance, Other Side, 167.
64. William S. Barker, “The Men and Parties of the Assembly,” in John L. Carson and David
W. Hall, eds., To Glorify and Enjoy God: A Commemoration of the 350th Anniversary of the
Westminster Assembly, 52; cited in Vance, Other Side, 171.
65. Vance, Other Side, 172.
66. John T. McNeil, The History and Character of Calvinism (Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 1966), 324.
67. Samuel T. Logan, “The Context and Work of the Assembly,” in Carson and Hall, To
Glorify, 36.
68. John R. de Witt, “The Form of Church Government,” in Carson and Hall, To Glorify, 148.
69. Philip Schaff, The Creeds of Christendom (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1990),
1:730.
70. G. T. Bettany, A Popular History of the Reformation and Modern Protestantism (London:
Ward, Lock and Bowden, Ltd, 1895), 414–20.
71. Philip F. Congdon, “Soteriological Implications of Five-point Calvinism,” Journal of the
Grace Evangelical Society, Autumn 1995, 8:15, 55–68.
72. Westminster Confession of Faith (London: n. p., 1643), VI: i, ii, iv; IX: iii.
73. Canons of Dort (Dordrecht, Holland, 1619), 1:6.
74. Ibid., II:8.
75. Westminster, X:I.
76. Ibid., XVII: i, ii.
77. William Cunningham, Historical Theology (Edmonton, AB: Still Waters Revival Books, n.
d.), 2:379.
7—Total Depravity
OF THE TEN WORDS making up the acronym TULIP, four (total,
depravity, unconditional, and irresistible) are not even found in the Bible,
and two (limited and perseverance) are each found only once. As for the
phrases expressed by each letter (Total Depravity, Unconditional Election,
Limited Atonement, Irresistible Grace, and Perseverance of the Saints),
none of them appears anywhere from the beginning of Genesis to the end
of Revelation.
We have, therefore, good cause to be at least cautious in approaching
these key Calvinist concepts. The burden is upon their promoters to show
that these ideas, in spite of their absence from Scripture, are indeed
taught there. “Trinity” likewise does not occur, but it is clearly taught.
Calvinism offers a special definition of human depravity: that depravity
equals inability—and this special definition necessitates both
Unconditional Election and Irresistible Grace. As the Canons of Dort
declare, “Therefore all men...without the regenerating grace of the Holy
Spirit...are neither able nor willing to return to God...nor to dispose
themselves to reformation.”1 That declaration expresses human opinion
—it is never stated in the Bible.
Calvinism insists that all men, being totally depraved by nature, are
unable to repent and believe the gospel, yet holds us accountable for
failing to do so. How can it reasonably be said that a person is unwilling to
do what he is unable to do? There is no way either to prove or to disprove
the statement.
Can we say that a man is unwilling to fly like a bird? If he were able, he
might very well be willing. Certainly his alleged unwillingness to fly like a
bird cannot be blamed as the reason he doesn’t do so! Nor can he be held
accountable for failing to fly so long as flying is impossible for him. Isn’t
Calvinism guilty of both absurdity and injustice by declaring man to be
incapable of repentance and faith, then condemning him for failing to
repent and believe?
Calvinism’s Undeniable Irrationality
Such glaring contradictions are innate within Calvinism and have
caused divisions even among Calvinists, who cannot all agree among
themselves. Consider the controversy in 1945 over the fitness for
ordination of Gordon H. Clark. “Cornelius Van Til led the seminary faculty
in a Complaint against Clark’s understanding of the Confession of Faith.”2
Clark was accused of “rationalism” for his unwillingness to declare (as so-
called “moderate” Calvinists do) that salvation was sincerely offered by
God to those for whom Christ, according to Calvinism, did not die and
whom God had from eternity past predestined to eternal torment. Clark
considered it to be a direct contradiction that God could seek the
salvation of those “He has from eternity determined not to save.”
Clark was accused by so-called moderates of being a “hyper-
Calvinist”—but such labels are misleading. Both Clark and his “moderate”
opponents believed exactly the same—that God had predestined some to
heaven and others to hell. Clark was simply being honest in admitting that
it could not rationally be said that God “loves” those He could save but
doesn’t. “Moderate” Calvinism is thus guilty of an undeniable
contradiction, yet John MacArthur spends an entire book trying to
support this contradiction.3 As we shall see, the “moderates” hide their
irrationality behind the idea that God is “free” to love different people
with different kinds of love—forgetting that any kind of genuine love is
loving, and that it is not loving to damn those who could be saved.
A similar controversy, which originated among the faculty at Calvin
Seminary, “had plagued the Christian Reformed Church during the
1920s...[and in 1924] ended with the exodus of the Calvinists from the
Christian Reformed Church under the leadership of Herman Hoeksema,
and the formation of a new church, the Protestant Reformed Church.”4
Van Til, in disagreement with the Westminster Confession, argued that
Clark was making “logic rule over Scripture.…” Van Til insisted that
Scripture contains irreconcilable paradoxes that “have of necessity the
appearance of being contradictory.”5
If that is the case, then Scripture is irrational and cannot be defended
reasonably; yet God offers to reason with man (Isaiah 1:18). Peter tells us
that we must always be ready to give an answer to everyone who asks a
reason for our faith (1 Peter 3:15) and Paul “reasoned” with the Jews
(Acts 18:4, 19).
Attempting to escape the irrationality of blaming the non-elect for
failing to do what they can’t do, some Calvinists insist that man is able but
simply not willing to turn to Christ. This is a minority view that contradicts
Total Depravity and it is partially correct. The problem with sinners is
indeed unwillingness. For a person to be unwilling, however, he must
have a will, and thus by an act of that will could become willing—a fact
that Calvinism denies. Furthermore, Calvin and his followers have
declared in the clearest language that man is unable to believe the
gospel, to turn to Christ, or to seek God or good: “He is free to turn to
Christ, but not able.”6 Inability is certainly the major view.
There is not a verse in the Bible, however, that presents Calvinism’s
radical idea that the sinner is incapable of believing the very gospel that
offers him forgiveness and salvation, and yet he is condemned by God for
failing to believe. In fact, as we shall see, the Bible declares otherwise.
“All men everywhere” (Acts 17:30) are repeatedly called upon to repent
and to believe on Christ. One would never derive from Scripture the idea
that the unregenerate are unable to believe. Dave Breese, highly
respected and brilliant author and expositor of Scripture, declared that it
“cannot be shown that ‘total depravity’ is in fact a scriptural truth.”7
 Yet Talbot and Crampton write, “The Bible stresses the total inability of
fallen man to respond to the things of God.... This is what the Calvinist
refers to as ‘total depravity.’”8 Palmer calls this doctrine “the most central
issue between the Arminian and the Calvinist, what Martin Luther even
said was the hinge on which the whole Reformation turned.”9
Consequently, the Calvinist insists that regeneration must precede
faith—and thus it must precede salvation, which is by faith alone: “once
he [the sinner] is born again, he can for the first time turn to
Jesus...asking Jesus to save him” (emphasis added).10 What strange and
unbiblical doctrine is this, that a sinner must be born again before he can
believe the gospel! Is it not through believing the gospel that we are born
again (1 Peter 1:23-25)? R. C. Sproul declares, “A cardinal point of
Reformed theology is the maxim, ‘Regeneration precedes faith.’”11
Nowhere in Scripture, however, is there a suggestion that man must
be regenerated before he can be saved by faith in Christ. Indeed, many
scriptures declare the opposite, for example: “...to make thee wise unto
salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus” (2 Timothy 3:15), and “ye
are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus” (Galatians 3:26). Faith
always precedes salvation/regeneration. There is not one scripture that
states clearly the doctrine that regeneration comes first and then faith
follows—not one. We will deal with this key doctrine in more depth later.
Spurgeon, though a Calvinist, said, “A man who is regenerated is
saved.”12 John MacArthur also equates being saved and regenerated.13
Calvin correctly declared, “Every man from the commencement of his
faith, becomes a Christian….”14 But if the elect must be regenerated
before they have faith, their regeneration still leaves them non-Christians,
since a man is saved by faith and thereby becomes a Christian (John 6:47;
11:25; 20:31; Acts 16:31; Romans 1:16; 10:9; 1 Corinthians 1:21; Hebrews
10:39; etc.). What “regeneration” is this that doesn’t save? Spurgeon did
not accept this part of Calvinism and therefore said it was “ridiculous” to
preach Christ to the regenerate.15 Of course. Contradicting the teaching
of “regeneration precedes faith” so popular among Calvinists today,
Calvin even titled a chapter, “Regeneration by Faith.”16
Nevertheless, viewing depravity as inability, which necessitates
regeneration before salvation, is the very foundation of most of today’s
Calvinism. Engelsma acknowledges, “Deny this doctrine and the whole of
Calvinism is demolished.”17 To be fair, we must, says Engelsma, “let
Calvinism speak for itself.”18 That is why we so extensively quote so many
Calvinists.
Inasmuch as Total Depravity requires regeneration before faith or
salvation, many Calvinists assume it could take place—and probably does
—in infancy. Thus Hoeksema reasons that “regeneration can take place in
the smallest of infants...in the sphere of the covenant of God, He usually
regenerates His elect children from infancy.”19 Do the children of
Calvinists then behave in a sanctified way far different from other
children? Hardly.
There we have one more declaration that regeneration leaves a person
still unsaved, insomuch as salvation is by faith, and infants neither can
understand nor believe the gospel, which is a clear requirement for
salvation. We ask Calvinists, in all sincerity, where this strange doctrine is
stated in the Bible. None of them has ever answered that question.
Depravity Equals Inability?
Most Christians, if asked whether man is by nature totally depraved,
would likely respond in the affirmative. However, the Calvinists’ view of
the obvious sinfulness of mankind goes far beyond the average Christian’s
ordinary understanding of depravity. As another leading Calvinist states,
“Paul’s assessment of persons apart from Christ may justly be summed up
in the theological categories of ‘total depravity’ and ‘total inability.’”20
“Inability”? A person may be unable to walk, or to think properly, or to
enter a restricted area. In each case the person is prevented in some way
from doing what he otherwise could do. Calvinism, however, does not
admit to a normal ability that some are prevented from using. It asserts a
universal and unique incapacity: that no one can believe the gospel
without being sovereignly regenerated by God. Nowhere in the Bible,
however, is this proposition clearly stated. Yet this is Calvinism’s very
foundation, from which the other four points flow.
The Bible repeatedly presents man’s sinfulness and warns that
rejecting the salvation God has provided in Christ leaves the sinner to
suffer eternal punishment under the wrath of God. Never, however, does
the Bible suggest that because of Adam’s original sin all of his
descendants lack the capacity to turn to God through faith in Christ. Much
less does Scripture teach that God only gives the “ability” to believe the
gospel to a certain select group. Instead, the Bible is filled with invitations
to all men to repent and believe on Christ to the saving of their souls—
and warnings that if they refuse to do so they will suffer God’s wrath
eternally. Paul went everywhere, preaching to everyone he encountered
throughout the Roman Empire “repentance toward God, and faith toward
our Lord Jesus Christ” (Acts 20:21). Apparently, he believed that anyone
could respond—not just a certain elect whom God had sovereignly
regenerated and then given them faith to believe.
Clearly, all are commanded to repent and turn to Christ. As Paul
declared on Mars’ Hill in Athens, God “commandeth all men everywhere
to repent” (Acts 17:30). To say that God commands men to do what they
cannot do without His grace, then withholds the grace they need and
punishes them eternally for failing to obey, is to make a mockery of God’s
Word, of His mercy and love, and is to libel His character. Not inability but
unwillingness is man’s problem: “The wicked, through the pride of his
countenance, will not seek after God” (Psalm 10:4). Christ rebuked the
rabbis, “And ye will not come to me, that ye might have life” (John 5:40)
—an unjust accusation to level at those who could not come unless God
caused them to do so.
It is neither stated in Scripture, nor does it follow reasonably, that
anyone, as a result of his depravity, even if his every thought is evil, is
thereby unable to believe the glad tidings of the gospel and receive Christ
as his Savior. Here, once again, we find Augustine’s influence. As noted
earlier, it is claimed that Augustine was “perhaps the first after Paul to
realize the Total Depravity of man;”21 indeed, that Augustine invented
“the exaggerated doctrine of total human depravity....”22 One often
wonders whether Calvin relied more upon Augustine than upon the Bible.
Turning depravity into inability leads inevitably to points 2 and 4: that
God must unconditionally elect those who will be saved; and that He
must effect that work through Irresistible Grace. Yet even the claim of
inability turns out to be misleading.
What Ability Is Needed to Receive a Gift?
The Bible makes it clear that salvation is the gift of God through Jesus
Christ, and that it is offered to all mankind: “...by the righteousness of one
[Christ] the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life” (Romans
5:18). No one can purchase, earn, or merit salvation. It must be (and need
only be) received as a free gift. What ability is required to accept a gift?
Only the capacity to choose—something that daily experience proves is
normal to every human being, even to the smallest child. How, then, is it
possible for any sinner to lack the “ability” to be saved?
Of course, the natural mind is at enmity with God. We are rebellious
sinners bent upon taking our own way and blinded by the deceitfulness of
our own lusts. But not one of the many scriptures that describe man’s
depravity state that he is impervious to the convicting power of the Holy
Spirit—or no one could be saved. Nor does any scripture declare that
God convicts and convinces only an elect group. Rather, the Spirit of truth
convinces “the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment...”
(John 16:8).
 Unquestionably, to receive the gift of salvation one must simply
believe the gospel. Moreover, the very command, “Go ye into all the
world, and preach the gospel to every creature” (Mark 16:15) implies the
ability of every person to believe the gospel. Indeed, that everyone knows
the truth of God’s existence, his moral responsibility to God, and his
breach of the moral laws, is stated repeatedly in Scripture:

• The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament

sheweth his handywork.... There is no speech nor language,
where their voice is not heard. (Psalm 19:1–3)

• If any man thirst, let him come unto me, and drink. (John 7:37)

• Whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely.

(Revelation 22:17)

• For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all

ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in
unrighteousness; because that which may be known of God is
manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the
invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly
seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his
eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse....
(Romans 1:18–22)

• For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature
the things contained in the law, these, having not the law [i.e.,
given to the Jews through Moses],...shew the work of the law
written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness,
and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing
one another....(Romans 2:14–15)

• Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved...

 (Acts 16:31)
In 1 Corinthians 2:7–16, Paul refers to “the things of the Spirit of God
[which] are spiritually discerned…the hidden wisdom [concerning] the
things which God hath prepared for them that love him…the deep things
of God…which the Holy Ghost teacheth [which] are spiritually discerned.”
The Calvinist uses this passage to support his idea of “total depravity”—
i.e., that only the elect who have been regenerated can understand and
believe the gospel. Paul, however, is here speaking of more than the
simple gospel; he is referring to the deeper understanding of spiritual
truth that comes with maturity in Christ. That fact, if not understood from
what we have just quoted, is crystal clear from his next words: “And I,
brethren, could not speak unto you as unto spiritual, but as unto carnal,
even as unto babes in Christ. I have fed you with milk, and not with meat:
for hitherto ye were not able to bear it…” (1 Corinthians 3:1–2).
Nevertheless, even if he were speaking only of the gospel, this passage
could not be used to support the teaching of total inability of the natural
man to believe. Of course, no one can understand the gospel except by
the enlightening of the Holy Spirit. But neither here nor elsewhere does
Paul even hint (much less state plainly) that the Holy Spirit only reveals
the gospel to an elect group. He declares that the “gospel is hid to them
that are lost” because “the god of this world [Satan] hath blinded the
minds of them which believe not…” (2 Corinthians 4:3, 4)—an effort Satan
would not need to expend if all men were totally depraved and thus
totally unable to believe the gospel.
Furthermore, Paul clearly states that “the grace of God that bringeth
salvation hath appeared to all men” (Titus 2:11). Similarly, Christ (as just
noted), declared that the Holy Spirit, “the Spirit of truth,” would “reprove
the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment” (John 16:8). The
New King James translates “reprove” as “convict.” John MacArthur
explains this as “conviction of the need for the Savior.”23 It is clear from
the context that Christ means the entire world of sinners, not that the
conviction of the need of a Savior is only for an elect whom He has
predestined for eternity in heaven.
Just as no special ability is required on the part of the endangered
person to be rescued from drowning or from a burning building, or on the
part of the imprisoned criminal who is pardoned to accept his release, so
no unusual ability is required of the person whom Christ rescues from
eternal condemnation. Thus, Calvinism’s very foundation in its special
definition of human depravity as inability is as unreasonable as it is
unbiblical.
Born Again Before Salvation?
Explaining Calvinism carefully, Palmer reiterates that no man can
under-stand the gospel and that this “lack of understanding is also a part
of man’s depravity...all minds are blind, unless they are regenerated.”24
The thoroughly Calvinistic London Baptist Confession of 1689 stated, “As
a consequence of his fall into a state of sin, man...is not able, by any
strength of his own, to turn himself to God, or even to prepare himself to
turn to God.”25 On the contrary, man’s problem is not inability but
unwillingness: “ye will not hear...will not believe...(Habakkuk 1:5; Acts
3:23). There are too many scriptures to list, but here are several more:
Isaiah 7:9; Zechariah 14:17; Malachi 2:2; Matthew 18:16; Luke 9:5, 19:14,
22:67; John 4:48; Acts 22:18; 2 Timothy 4:3, and others.
James White devotes an entire chapter to “The Inabilities of Man.” He
recites a long list of man’s sins, of his evil, of his depravity, and explains
that he is a “fallen creature, a slave to sin, spiritually dead, incapable of
doing what is pleasing to God.” He cites many scriptures concerning
man’s estrangement from God and the deceitfulness of his heart, that he
can no more change his heart than the leopard can change his spots, that
his mind is hostile toward God, that no man can come to Christ except the
Father draw him, and so forth. White declares, “The Reformed assertion
is that man cannot understand and embrace the gospel nor respond in
faith and repentance toward Christ without God first freeing him from sin
and giving him spiritual life (regeneration).”26 Nowhere, however, does
he cite a scripture that declares the most wretched sinner’s inability to
believe the gospel or to receive the free gift of eternal life that God offers
to all.
There are, of course, many scriptures describing man’s evil heart and
practices. None, however, states that a man cannot believe the gospel
unless he is one of the elect and has been given that faith by a sovereign
act of God. Pink declares that “the sinner, of himself, cannot repent and
believe.”27
Here the Calvinist comes dangerously close to teaching salvation by
works. If there is no work I must do to be saved, then how can I lack the
ability to do it? And surely no one lacks the ability simply to believe!
For all of their insistence upon man’s inability to believe the gospel and
to receive Christ, however, Calvinists cannot agree among themselves. J.
I. Packer contradicts his fellow Calvinists (and what he himself says
elsewhere) in declaring that adoption (i.e., regeneration) follows faith and
justification: “God elected men from eternity in order that in due time
they might be justified, upon their believing. Their adoption as God’s sons
follows upon their justification; it is, indeed, no more than the positive
outworking of God’s justifying sentence.”28
Of course, Packer, like other Calvinists, would deny that he is
contradicting himself. How? He would argue that “regeneration” (as
Calvinism defines it) is not the same as justification, or being adopted as
sons and daughters into God’s family. But if “regeneration” is not being
“born again” as Christ described it to Nicodemus, but leaves the sinner,
though regenerated, still unjustified before God, we demand to know
where in Scripture this Calvinist “regeneration” is presented. In fact, it is
not biblical at all.
 As we have seen, defining depravity as inability requires God to
sovereignly regenerate man, and without any recognition, understanding,
or faith on man’s part, raise him from being “dead in trespasses and sins”
(Ephesians 2:1) to spiritual life. Only then can He give man the faith to
believe the gospel. As Dort, quoted above, says, “Without the
regenerating grace of the Holy Spirit, they are neither able nor willing to
return to God....”29 Enabling grace is needed for faith, but not
“regenerating grace.” Where does the Bible say one must be regenerated
before one can believe the gospel? Not one verse can be cited in which
that proposition is stated clearly.
Most non-Calvinists have thought that being “born again,” as Christ
presented it to Nicodemus in John 3, is the same as being saved.
Therefore, they are surprised to learn that Calvinism teaches that one
must experience the new birth, which Christ describes in John 3, before
one can believe the gospel and be saved. As Sproul emphasizes once
again, “The Reformed view of predestination teaches that before a
person can choose Christ...he must be born again...one does not first
believe, then become reborn....”30
On the contrary, we are “born again” by believing “the word which by
the gospel is preached…” (1 Peter: 1:23–25). In fact, the Bible always
presents faith as the condition of salvation.
The Disturbing Consequences
Sadly, the acceptance of this theory leads to a corollary that is even
more unbiblical as well as contradictory to the innate sense of
compassion that God has placed within even unregenerate man: that God
could save all mankind but deliberately withholds from multitudes the
salvation He gives to the elect. Obviously, what God does for the elect
(who likewise were “totally depraved” by nature) He could do for all, if He
so desired. That He doesn’t would prove that the One who is love lacks
love for all mankind—which is contrary to all Scripture: “Who will have all
men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth” (1
Timothy 2:4).
If lost sinners suffer from such an inability that they can be saved only
by God’s sovereign act of regeneration (and all men are not saved), it
follows that God limits His mercy and grace to a select group. As one of
the most fervent Calvinists, Arthur W. Pink, writes to the elect, “Then do
you not see that it is due to no lack of power in God...that other rebels are
not saved too? If God was able to subdue your will and win your heart,
and that without interfering with your moral responsibility, then is He not
able to do the same for others [i.e., the non-elect]? Assuredly He is.”31
Here we confront a major problem with Calvinism: its denial of God’s
infinite love for all. That God, who repeatedly declares His love for all
mankind, would choose to save only some and leave all others to suffer
eternal damnation would be contrary to His very nature of infinite love
and mercy as the Bible presents Him. Yet the very damnation of perhaps
billions is said by the Calvinist to have been foreordained from eternity
past because it pleases and glorifies God! The Westminster Confession of
Faith, paraphrasing Calvin himself, declares that God ordains to eternal
punishment multitudes whom He could just as well ordain to eternal life
and joy in heaven:
By the decree of God, for the manifestation of his glory, some men and angels are
predestinated unto everlasting life; and others foreordained to everlasting
death.... Those of mankind that are predestinated unto life, God...hath chosen in
Christ unto everlasting glory...to the praise of his glorious grace.... The rest of
mankind, God was pleased, according to the unsearchable counsel of his own
will...for the glory of his sovereign power over his creatures...to ordain them to
dishonor and wrath for their sin, to the praise of his glorious justice.32

Even Sproul admits, “If some people are not elected unto salvation
then it would seem that God is not at all that loving toward them.
Further, it seems that it would have been more loving of God not to have
allowed them to be born. That may indeed be the case.”33 God’s love,
however, is infinite and perfect. It is therefore an oxymoron to suggest
that God was ever toward anyone “not all that loving” and might “have
been more loving.” No Calvinist has ever satisfactorily explained the lack
of love with which they charge God. Who could fail to be gravely
concerned for this gross misrepresentation of our loving Creator?!
The great Apostle Paul could declare unequivocally, “I am not ashamed
of the gospel of Christ!” It almost sounds as though Sproul has some
reservations concerning the gospel according to Calvinism. If the gospel is
not good news to everyone, but only to the elect, is that cause for us to
be ashamed of a God who is less than loving to all? Paul did not have the
problem of believing that God was “not all that loving.”
By now it should be clear that Calvinism is founded upon the premise
that God does not love everyone, is not merciful to all, does not want all
to be saved, but in fact is pleased to damn billions whom, by sovereign
regeneration, He could have saved had He so desired. If that is the God of
the Bible, Calvinism is true. If that is not the God of the Bible, who “is
love” (1 John 4:8), Calvinism is false. The central issue is God’s love and
character in relation to mankind, as presented in Scripture. The very title
of this book, What Love Is This?, asks of Calvinism a question to which it
has no answer.
As we have already pointed out, Spurgeon (whom Calvinists love to
quote when he supports Calvinism) found himself in deep conflict. He
urged everyone to come to Christ—yet to do so contradicted his
affirmation of Limited Atonement. In effect, Spurgeon was urging men to
come to Christ, even though he didn’t believe Christ had died for them.
Yet conscience and knowledge of God would not allow him to escape the
fact that, just as God commands all mankind to “love your neighbor as
yourself,” so God must genuinely love all mankind.
As we have previously noted, in reference to 1 Timothy 2:4, Spurgeon
declared: “As it is my wish…[and] your wish…so it is God’s wish that all
men should be saved….. He is no less benevolent than we are.”34
Spurgeon was caught in the web of contradictions woven by Calvinism.
How could God, whose sovereignty enables Him to do anything He
desires (a cornerstone of Calvinism), fail to save those He “wishes” to be
saved?
Which Comes First, Salvation or Faith?
Nowhere, from Genesis to Revelation, does the Bible teach that sinful
man, without first being regenerated, is incapable of repenting of his sins,
turning to God, and believing the gospel to the saving of his soul. On the
contrary, it is all too clear that faith precedes salvation and is in fact a
condition of salvation. There are scores of verses declaring that we are
saved through faith, through believing on the Lord Jesus Christ as He is
presented in the gospel. This sequence of events is undeniable:

• He that believeth...shall be saved.... (Mark 16:16)

• Then cometh the devil, and taketh away the word out of their
hearts, lest they should believe and be saved.... (Luke 8:12)

• Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved....

(Acts 16:31)

• I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of

God unto salvation to every one that believeth.... (Romans
1:16)

• Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel...by which

also ye are saved...unless ye have believed in vain. (1
Corinthians 15:1–2)

• For by grace are ye saved through faith.... (Ephesians 2:8)

• ...them which should hereafter believe on him to life

 everlasting. (1 Timothy 1:16)
These scriptures are clear. Therefore, in order to support
“regeneration before faith,” it must be proved that regeneration leaves
one still unsaved and thus under God’s judgment. But that view is both
unbiblical and irrational.
In numerous places, the Bible declares that upon believing in Christ
according to the gospel (and only by believing), we receive eternal life
from God as a free gift: “That whosoever believeth in him should...have
everlasting life (John 3:16); He that heareth...and believeth...hath
everlasting life...(5:24); That ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the
Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name”
(20:31). Believing is obviously a condition for receiving the gift of eternal
life. Could one be “regenerated” and remain unsaved and without “life
through his name,” which is received by faith alone? Not according to the
Bible! How, then, could regeneration precede faith?
The Bible clearly teaches that the very moment (and not a moment
before) one believes in and receives the Lord Jesus Christ as the Savior
who died for one’s sins, that person has been born (regenerated of the
Spirit of God) into the family of God and has thereby become a child of
God. Surely there are not two kinds of life that God freely gives to sinners:
one through a special Calvinist “regeneration” and the other at salvation
by faith. The eternal life received as a free gift through believing in Christ
can only be the same life one receives upon being born again.
Certainly, Christ gives Nicodemus no reason to believe that the life of
God received from the Holy Spirit through the new birth differs in any
way from the eternal life one receives by faith in Him. How could
“regeneration” be something else? The fact that eternal life comes
through faith and that eternal life is only by the new birth indicates quite
clearly that faith is the requirement for and therefore precedes
regeneration. Believing in Christ unto salvation is not the result of
regeneration but the essential requirement for it to take place.
Verse after verse, in the plainest possible language, the Bible puts
believing the gospel before regeneration. Paul tells his children in the
faith, “in Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the gospel” (1
Corinthians 4:15), while Peter declares that we are “born again...by the
word of God…the word which by the gospel is preached…” (1 Peter 1:23–
25).
Being born again by the Word of God can refer only to regeneration,
but the Word of God is effectual only to those who believe. Paul declares
under the inspiration of God, “faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by
the word of God” (Romans 10:17) and he even calls it “the word of faith
which we preach” (verse 8). Of those who are lost, we are told that “the
word preached did not profit them, not being mixed with faith” (Hebrews
4:2).
On the basis of abundant testimony from Scripture, we can only
conclude that faith in Christ through the gospel precedes regeneration.
Therefore, the new birth does not take place by an act of God apart from
a person’s understanding of and faith in the gospel but as a result thereof.
The doctrine that one must be born again (regenerated) before one can
believe is simply not biblical.
Even Spurgeon, in spite of his claim of being a staunch Calvinist, could
not accept the teaching that regeneration came before faith in Christ
through the gospel. Calvinists quote him when he supports them, but
they ignore statements such as the following:
If I am to preach faith in Christ to a man who is regenerated, then the man, being
regenerated, is saved already, and it is an unnecessary and ridiculous thing for me
to preach Christ to him, and bid him to believe in order to be saved when he is
saved already, being regenerate. Am I only to preach faith to those who have it?
Absurd, indeed! Is not this waiting till the man is cured and then bringing him the
medicine? This is preaching Christ to the righteous and not to sinners.35
 Who can deny that Spurgeon’s argument is both biblical and
reasonable? Nor can it be denied that he was at the same time, though
unwittingly, denying the very heart of the Calvinism he at other times
stoutly affirmed.
Biblical Support for Total Depravity?
To show that the Bible does indeed teach total depravity as inability,
the Calvinist cites such scriptures as “And GOD saw that the wickedness of
man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of
his heart was only evil continually” (Genesis 6:5; 8:21). Other verses
offered in alleged proof of this doctrine include Jeremiah 17:9, “The heart
is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked,” and Romans 3:10–
18, “There is none righteous...none that seeketh after God...none that
doeth good...no fear of God before their eyes,” and so forth.
Obviously, however, the fact that man’s thoughts are only evil
continually, that his heart is desperately wicked and deceitful, and that he
neither seeks nor fears God, does not say that he is therefore unable,
unless first of all regenerated by God, to believe the gospel even if
convicted and convinced thereof by the Holy Spirit. Paul teaches
otherwise: “ye were the servants of sin, but ye have obeyed from the
heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you” (Romans 6:17).
Clearly, servants of sin responded to the command to repent and believe
in Christ, and as a result they were regenerated—born of the Spirit of God
into the family of God, and thus saved.
Nor does the statement that “none seeks after God” deny that any
man, no matter how depraved, can respond by intelligent choice without
first being regenerated if God seeks and draws him. Neither does the
Bible teach that God only seeks and draws an “elect” but no others.
Indeed, many passages affirm that under the drawing of the Holy Spirit
sinful man can make a moral response: “Draw me, we will run after thee”
(Song of Solomon 1:4); “And ye shall seek me, and find me, when ye shall
search for me with all your heart” (Jeremiah 29:13); “He [God] is a
rewarder of them that diligently seek him” (Hebrews 11:6). Everyone that
thirsteth, no matter how wicked, is commanded to turn unto the Lord,
with never so much as a hint that this is impossible until God first
regenerates them (Isaiah 55:1–7).
Furthermore, the offer of salvation is extended to “all the ends of the
earth” (Isaiah 45:22). That this offer is not just for a select elect is clear.
The “everyone that thirsteth” reminds one of Christ’s cry, “If any man
thirst, let him come unto me, and drink” (John 7:37). All those who thirst
are offered the same “living water” that Christ offered to the woman at
the well (John 4:10). And it is with this same promise to whosoever will
that the Bible ends: “And whosoever will, let him take of the water of life
freely” (Revelation 22:17).
The universality of God’s offer of salvation is presented repeatedly
throughout the Bible; for example: “preach the gospel to every creature”
(Mark 16:15); and “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only
begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but
have everlasting life” (John 3:16), etc. Surely, “every creature,” “the
world,” and “whosoever” must include all, no matter how badly
depraved.
It would take considerable manipulation to maintain that the offer of
salvation is extended only to the elect, or even that only the elect could
respond, and even then, not until they had been sovereignly regenerated.
Paul confirms this desire of God for all nations when he declares to the
Greek philosophers on Mars’ Hill:
God that made the world and all things therein...hath made of one blood all
nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the
times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation; That they should seek
the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him, though he be not far
from every one of us: For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain
also of your own poets have said.... (Acts 17:24–28)
 Is it really possible that Paul’s “all nations of men” and “every one of
us” and “we” referred to an elect of whom the Greeks had never heard?
On the contrary, Paul is clearly including his listeners and antagonists on
Mars’ Hill as among those who have their physical life and being from
God and who may seek and find Him. This was what the Greek poets to
whom he refers had said (surely these philosophers were not referring to
the elect), and Paul is affirming that general understanding and declaring
the person of the true God to them, a God who is “not far from every one
of us,” who commands all men to seek Him, and who may be found by all.
There is no suggestion that anyone’s depravity and bondage to sin makes
it impossible to believe in Christ without first being sovereignly
regenerated.
Is There a Bias at Work?
If God intends that all mankind (no matter how depraved) seek Him,
and if He must be sought before He is found, then we can only conclude
that those who have not yet found God and thus are not yet regenerated
are capable of a genuine seeking after God as He draws all men unto Him
(John 12:32). Calvinism’s conclusion (that because of his depravity, man
must be regenerated before he can believe or even seek God) is thus
contrary to the clear teaching of Scripture—a fact that will be dealt with
in more depth in subsequent chapters.
Calvinists often cite John 1:13 as proof that man’s alleged inability due
to his total depravity requires that he must first be regenerated before he
can believe the gospel or receive Christ as his Savior. It speaks of those
“Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will
of man, but of God.” Commenting on this verse, Calvin writes, “Hence it
follows, first, that faith does not proceed from ourselves, but is the fruit
of spiritual regeneration; for the Evangelist affirms that no man can
believe, unless he be begotten of God; and therefore faith is a heavenly
gift.”36 In fact, Calvin’s conclusion doesn’t follow at all from this passage.
He is reading into the text something not there in order to support his
own doctrine. Indeed, he has the context backwards.
The context makes John’s meaning quite clear: “He came unto his
own, and his own received him not. But as many as received him, to them
gave he power [the right or privilege] to become the sons of GOD, even to
them that believe on his name” (verses 11–12). His own people, the Jews,
rejected Christ. In contrast to those who did not receive Him, however, all
those who did receive Him and believe on His name are, as a result of
receiving Him and believing, given the right to become the sons of God.
This new birth (verse 13) by an act of God regenerating them into His
family through His Spirit is for those who have received Christ and
believed “on his name” (verse 12). We deal with this in more depth in
Chapter 21.
Is God Sincere?
If the doctrine of Total Depravity as defined in TULIP were true, then
from Genesis to Revelation we would have the contradiction of God
pleading year after year, century after century, for repentance from a
seemingly endless procession of billions of individuals who (being totally
depraved) were incapable of repenting and whom He had already
predestined to eternal torment from a past eternity. He would be
presented in Scripture as pleading with those to repent and turn to Him
whom He had created so hopelessly depraved that they could not
possibly repent unless He first regenerated them, and from whom He was
withholding the very regeneration and grace they needed to turn to Him,
and whom He had no intention of saving. Such a scenario turns most of
the Bible into a charade and mocks the rational intelligence and
conscience with which God has bestowed mankind.
Yet the “moderate” Calvinist claims to affirm, in contrast to the
“hyper-Calvinist,” that God sincerely offers salvation to all. Sincerely
offers salvation to those for whom Christ did not die and whom He
predestined to eternal torment? This is madness. Yet Calvinists who
honestly admit that the God of Calvinism does not love all mankind and
does not genuinely offer salvation to all through the gospel are called
“hyper-Calvinists.” That label is a ploy by “moderates” to escape the
horrible truth!
If because of “total depravity” man lacks the ability to respond without
God’s sovereign act of regeneration, then all of God’s pleas are obviously
both useless and senseless. There is no question that if Calvinism were
true, there would be no reason for God to urge men to repent—yet He
does. God’s sovereign act of regeneration is alleged to require no faith or
participation of any kind on man’s part. Thus, the entire history of God’s
dealings with man as recorded in the Bible loses credibility.
Calvinism drives us into an irrational dead end. There would be no
need for God to plead with the elect, whom He has already predestined
to salvation, a salvation which He allegedly effects sovereignly before any
faith is exercised on their part. Nor does it make any better sense for God
to present the gospel to and plead with the non-elect who cannot believe
it until they have been sovereignly regenerated, but whom He will not
regenerate, having already damned them by His eternal decree. Yet He
continues to plead and blame them for not repenting, even while He
withholds from them the essential grace that He gives only to the elect!
And this is only one of Calvinism’s gross misrepresentations of God.
Calvin’s Inconsistency
In his discussions of Total Depravity, Calvin sometimes seemed
confused and unable to articulate his ideas well. He theorized that totally
depraved man naturally loves truth, but not enough; still, he has great
gifts from his Creator, and whatever truth he has comes from God—yet
he cannot fully know the truth and thus be saved. One is left to wonder
about the exact meaning of this terminology and where it is stated in
Scripture. At other times, Calvin further contradicts himself concerning
this key doctrine, and in some places even indicates that “total” doesn’t
really mean total. For example, Calvin engaged in the following confusing
speculation, which seems to teeter on the brink of Total Depravity, fall
over the edge at times, then recover itself:
The human mind...is naturally influenced by the love of truth [but] this love of
truth fails before it reaches the goal [yet] man’s efforts are not always so utterly
fruitless as not to lead to some result...and intelligence naturally
implanted...should lead every individual for himself to recognize it as a special gift
of God....

Therefore...the human mind, however much fallen and perverted from its original
integrity, is still adorned and invested with admirable gifts from its Creator.

He...by the virtue of the Spirit...has been pleased to assist us...with great talents
for the investigation of truth [but] not based on a solid foundation of truth.... The
Lord has bestowed on [philosophers] some slight perception of his Godhead, that
they might not plead ignorance as an excuse for their impiety, and has, at times,
instigated them to deliver some truths, the confession of which should be their
own condemnation.... Their discernment was not such as to direct them to the
truth, far less to enable them to attain it, but resembled that of the bewildered
traveler....

An Apostle declares, “When the Gentiles...do by nature the things contained in the
law, these...shew the work of the law written in their hearts...” (Romans 2:14–15)
[so] we certainly cannot say that they are altogether blind.37

Confusion and contradictions reign here. Is man totally depraved or

isn’t he? And if he is, exactly what does that mean? The belief that the
natural man doesn’t understand the things of God unless they are
revealed to him by God cannot be denied—the Bible says so. That is true
of everything we have; it all comes from God:

• He giveth to all life, and breath, and all things...for in him we

live, and move, and have our being.... (Acts 17:25, 28)

• Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and
cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no
variableness, neither shadow of turning. (James 1:17)
 But without biblical warrant, Calvin introduces the idea of degrees: All
men by nature receive much truth from God, but in varying degrees. Most
of them just don’t receive enough—such a quantity and quality of grace is
only for the elect. Unregenerate man can see, yet he is blind—but not
totally blind. What exactly does Calvin mean? We are left to wonder.
Faced with a Choice
Calvinists object to the assertion that the natural man is “not so totally
depraved that he can’t hear God’s voice and come to Christ.” They
respond, “Totally depraved is totally depraved. It makes no sense to say
man isn’t so totally depraved.” Not only is Total Depravity not a biblical
concept, but as the quote above shows, Calvin himself said that man is
not so totally depraved that he cannot receive much truth from God; he
just doesn’t get enough truth, because God withholds it. Why? And where
does the Bible say that? Calvin says God withholds truth in order “to
render man inexcusable....” That is like crippling a man in order to render
him inexcusable for failing to run fast enough or jump high enough!
Calvin says that truth comes only from the Spirit of truth, so whatever
truth man has is received from God. Then if God gives all men some truth,
why doesn’t He give them enough to know and seek Him? Surely God can
give all mankind as much truth as He desires to give. Calvin cannot show
us that man naturally has a capacity for this much truth but not for that
much. How was depravity redefined as an incapacity, which isn’t total but
is just enough to damn the soul? There is nothing anywhere in Scripture
to support such speculation.
When Peter confessed to Jesus, “Thou art the Christ,” Jesus told him,
“Flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in
heaven” (Matthew 16:15–17). Peter must have been a totally depraved
natural man when the Father revealed Christ to him. Surely he hadn’t yet
been born of the Spirit. Though he acknowledged Jesus as the Christ, he
still lacked any understanding about Christ dying for his sins. Could not
the Father, therefore, reveal Christ to everyone as He did to Peter? Why
not? Clearly, Peter had a revelation from the Father concerning Christ
before he was regenerated.
For all the importance Calvinism places upon the doctrine of Total
Depravity, inasmuch as that is the supposed condition of all mankind and
the elect are delivered out of it, being totally depraved is not what keeps
men in darkness after all, but God’s withholding the needed light. The lost
are kept out of heaven not only by their sin (for which there is a remedy)
but by God’s withholding the grace they need for salvation, because He
has already predestined them to eternal torment—a condition impossible
to remedy!
Given what the Bible tells us of God’s dealings with man and
Calvinism’s doctrine of man’s inability to believe, there are only two
choices: either to charge the Infinite God with acting insincerely and in
limited love and limited grace, or to admit that Calvinism is in error. In
fact, this leads to another conclusion just as devastating to Calvinism, to
be considered in the next chapter.
1. Canons of Dort (Dordrecht, Holland, 1619), III, IV:3.
2. Garrett P. Johnson, “The Myth of Common Grace,” The Trinity Review, March/April
1987, 1.
3. John MacArthur, Jr., The Love of God (Dallas, TX: Word Publishing, 1996).
4. Johnson, “Myth.”
5. Cornelius Van Til, Common Grace and the Gospel (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and
Reformed Publishing Company, 1973), 165–66; cited in Johnson, “Myth”.
6. Frank B. Beck, The Five Points of Calvinism (Lithgow, Australia: Covenanter Press, 2nd
Australian ed., 1986), 9.
7. Dave Breese, “The Five Points of Calvinism” (self-published paper, n. d.).
8. Kenneth G. Talbot and W. Gary Crampton, Calvinism, Hyper-Calvinism and Arminianism
(Edmonton, AB: Still Waters Revival Books, 1990), 20.
9. Edwin H. Palmer, the five points of calvinism (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, enlarged
ed., 20th prtg. 1999), 19; citing Martin Luther, The Bondage of the Will, trans. J. I. Packer
and O. R. Johnston (Grand Rapids, MI: Fleming H. Revell, 1957), 319.
10. Ibid., 19.
11. R. C. Sproul, Chosen by God (Carol Stream, IL: Tyndale House Publishers, Inc., 1986), 10.
12. C. H. Spurgeon, “The Warrant of Faith” (Pasadena, TX: Pilgrim Publications, 1978), 3.
One-sermon booklet from 63-volume set.
13. John MacArthur, audiotape, “The Love of God, Part 5, Romans 9” (Grace To You, 90–81,
1995).
14. John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, trans. Henry Beveridge (Grand Rapids,
MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1998 ed.), II: xvii, 1.
15. Spurgeon, “The Warrant of Faith,” 3.
16. Calvin, Institutes, III: iii.
17. David J. Engelsma, “The Death of Confessional Calvinism in Scottish Presbyterianism,”
The Standard Bearer, December 1, 1992, 103.
18. David J. Engelsma, A Defense of Calvinism as the Gospel (The Evangelism Committee,
Protestant Reformed Church, n. d.), 18.
19. Homer Hoeksema, Reformed Dogmatics (Grandville, MI: Reformed Free Publishing
Association, 1966), 464.
20. Douglas Moo, The Epistle to the Romans (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm B. Eerdmans Publishing
Co., 1996), 488.
21. Arthur C. Custance, The Sovereignty of Grace (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and
Reformed Publishing Co., 1979), 18.
22. Frederic W. Farrar, History of Interpretation (New York: E. P. Dutton and Co., 1886), 24.
23. John MacArthur, The MacArthur Study Bible (Dallas, TX: Word Publishing, 1997), 1617.
24. Palmer, five points, 16.
25. Quoted in A Faith to Confess: The Baptist Confession of Faith of 1689, Rewritten in
Modern English (Carey Publications, 1986); cited in James R. White, The Potter’s Freedom
(Amityville, NY: Calvary Press Publishing, 2000), 78.
26. White, Potter’s, 101.
27. Arthur W. Pink, The Sovereignty of God (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 2nd prtg.
1986), 149.
28. J. I. Packer, “Sola Fide: The Reformed Doctrine of Justification” (www.the-
highway.com/Justification_Packer.html).
29. Dort, Canons, III,IV:3.
30. Sproul, Chosen, 72.
31. Pink, Sovereignty, 50.
32. Westminster Confession of Faith (London: n. p. 1643), III: iii, v, vii.
33. Sproul, Chosen, 32.
34. C. H. Spurgeon, Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit, vol 26, 49–52.
35. C. H. Spurgeon, “The Warrant of Faith” (Pasadena, TX: Pilgrim Publications, 1978), 3.
 One-sermon booklet from 63–volume set.
36. John Calvin, Commentary on the Gospel According to John (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker
Book House, 1984), 43; cited in White, Potter’s, 182–83.
37. Calvin, Institutes, II: ii, 12–22.
8—The Solemn Issue: God’s Character
Why does God waste His time and effort and the time and effort of His
many prophets pleading with those who, according to Calvinism, cannot
hear Him and who—even if they could, being totally depraved—would
never respond to His appeal by believing and obeying Him? Would it not
be the worst kind of hypocrisy for God to express concern for the eternal
welfare of those He has predestined to eternal torment? Why create this
elaborate fiction of mourning and weeping over multitudes who God
knows will not only refuse to repent but who, unless He regenerates
them, cannot repent because of their total inability to do so?
On the contrary, God must be appealing to human conscience and will
—something that Calvinism cannot allow for the non-elect. Pink argues
that “to affirm that he [man] is a free agent is to deny that he is totally
depraved.”1 But man is a free agent, as we shall see.
Why does the Holy Spirit, through Scripture, repeatedly give the
impression that God desires all men to repent and commands them and
pleads with them to do so, while at the same time He withholds from all
but a select group the essential means of repenting? Why would God
weep over and plead with those for whom He couldn’t possibly have
either love or genuine concern, having already predestined them to
eternal damnation? Beck declares, “He [man] is free to turn to Christ but
not able.”2 That is like saying that man is free to go to Mars any time he
pleases.
Is this a joke? The Calvinist seems unaware of the contradiction in what
he is saying. Bryson raises a logical question:
And since the unregenerate are reprobate [predestined to damnation by God’s
decree] as a result of a choice made by God alone, how could they be responsible
 for their lostness...and inevitable damnation?3

It would be a mocking taunt for God to promise man that if he would

earnestly and sincerely seek Him he would find Him, if in fact it were
impossible for man to do so unless God regenerated him. As inspired by
the Holy Spirit, however, the entire Bible from Genesis to Revelation gives
the clear impression that those with whom God pleads could of their own
volition repent and turn to Him if they so desired. Taking Scripture at face
value, H. A. Ironside said:
The gospel preacher can declare without any kind of mental reservation the
blessed fact that whosoever will, may take the water of life freely (Revelation
22:17). This is not at all a question of being allowed to take Christ as Saviour. It is
an earnest entreaty to do so. (Emphasis added)4

Choice and Human Responsibility

Frederic Farrar has rightly said that what God commands “must be in
the power of the will, since ability is the measurement of obligation.”5 G.
Campbell Morgan stated firmly, “We cannot study this Bible without
being brought face to face with personal responsibility…. When the voice
of God speaks, man’s will is free to obey or to disobey.”6 Kenneth
Foreman said, “If there is anything the Bible shows it is that God does
hold men responsible for their actions. God’s ‘thou shalt’ is spoken to free
persons, not to puppets.”7
Yet Gerstner insists upon the contradiction that is innate in Calvinism:
“It is your decision to choose or reject Christ, but it is not of your own free
will.”8 How it can be my decision, when I am not free to choose, is
meaningful only to Calvinists. To all others such a statement is
outrageously irrational and contradictory.
Calvinism clearly requires its own peculiar definition of words. Pink
wrote, “Those who speak of man’s ‘free will,’ and insist upon his inherent
power to either accept or reject the Saviour, do but voice their ignorance
of the real condition of Adam’s fallen children.”9 Yet Jesus clearly taught
that the unregenerated man can indeed make a willing choice to do God’s
will and thereby know the truth: “If any man will do [i.e., wills to do] his
[God’s] will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or
whether I speak of myself” (John 7:17). He offered “if any man will” not to
a special elect but to the unregenerated multitude and rabbis who would
soon crucify Him. Bishop J. C. Ryle, who stood so firmly against Romanism
in England in the nineteenth century, commented:
The English language here fails to give the full force of the Greek. It is literally, “If
any man is willing to do—has a mind and desire and inclination to do God’s will....”
It should never be forgotten that God deals with us as moral beings, and not as
beasts or stones.10

Through the centuries, a non-Calvinist understanding of Scripture

concerning human responsibility and ability has been ably expressed by
many Christian leaders. Calvinists, however, are often ambivalent. A
prominent Baptist wrote, “The individual not only must act for himself; he
is the only one who can. God has made him competent.”11 While seeming
to affirm “inability” due to total depravity, at the same time A. H. Strong
insisted, “The sinner can...seek God from motives of self-interest...the
sinner can...give attention to divine truth.”12 Griffith Thomas wrote,
“Total depravity does not mean the absolute loss of...the freedom of the
soul in choosing…conscious action. In this sense our freedom is real and
the Fall has not affected it.... Fallen man has the faculty of will, as he has
other faculties....”13 In the same vein, W. L. Pettingill argued from
Scripture, “Whosoever will may come. He is only to come, and God does
all the rest.”14
What God Is This?
For God to act as Calvinism teaches would be inconsistent with the
repeated assurance in His Word that He is merciful and loving toward all.
The committed Calvinist W. G. T. Shedd wrote, “The charges that have
been made...from time immemorial are, that Calvinism represents God as
a tyrannical sovereign who is destitute of love and mercy for any but an
elect few, that it attributes to man the depravity of devils, deprives him of
moral freedom, and subjects him to the arbitrary cruelty of a Being who
creates some men in order to damn them.”15 As we are amply
documenting, this accusation is true. In fact, Shedd admitted that this
charge had been made even by some Calvinists against what they called
hyper-Calvinism.16 As we have already seen, however, and will
demonstrate more fully, Calvinists who accuse others of being “hyper”
actually believe the same thing, but attempt to cover up that fact with
double-talk.
In defending his misrepresentation of God, the Calvinist argues that for
God to graciously regenerate all mankind instead of only the elect “would
violate His justice, which requires just punishment for sin.”17 On the
contrary, if saving and regenerating the elect is no violation of His
character or justice, neither would it be a violation for Him to do the
same for all mankind. Why must God’s infinite mercy be limited to a
select group? By this extreme view of sovereignty, Calvinism blames God
rather than the sinner for the sinner’s rejection of Christ and his eternal
doom.
To justify his beliefs, the Calvinist falsely argues that imploring those
who cannot respond “is a just and necessary way for God to act if man is
to be held accountable as a fallen and sinful creature, regardless of his
inability to respond.”18 The very suggestion is offensive to common sense
and man’s God-given conscience. God does not implore men to do what,
by his immutable decree, they cannot do, in order to hold them
accountable! Yet Calvin, a lawyer, claimed this was God’s justice in action.
After declaring that God only regenerates an elect group, Palmer
exults, “What a good God!”19 Good to Calvinism’s elect, but certainly not
good to those whom He could save but instead damns to eternal
suffering. In fact, the God of the Bible is good to all:

• For thou, Lord, art good, and ready to forgive; and plenteous in
mercy unto all them that call upon thee. (Psalms 86:5)

• The hand of our God is upon all them for good that seek him....
(Ezra 8:22)

• Jesus of Nazareth...went about doing good, and healing all that

were oppressed of the devil; for God was with him. (Acts 10:38)
[Were only the elect “oppressed of the devil”?]

• The Lord is good to all: and his tender mercies are over all his
works. (Psalms 145:9)
How could it increase the responsibility of those who are incapable of
responding to plead with and warn them? Instead, whoever withheld the
help that someone needed would be accountable. Yet this immoral,
deliberate withholding of salvation is attributed to God under the excuse
that it is “God’s good pleasure to do so.” Would someone who stood by
and watched a person drown, whom he could have saved, be exonerated
if he explained that it had been his “good pleasure” to do so? Doesn’t
God have an even higher—yes, a perfect—standard of love and concern?
To attribute such callousness to God is to grossly misrepresent and malign
Him!
A Question not of Sovereignty but of Character
God, because of our guilt as sinners, certainly has the right to damn us
all. However, His justice does not require Him to damn some sinners but
not others, the non-elect but not the elect, since all are equally depraved
and guilty. Nor is it rational or biblical that God, who is infinite in love and
mercy, would allow anyone to be damned whom He could justly deliver.
Many scriptures clearly declare that God sent His Son “to be the Saviour
of the world” (John 4:42; 1 John 4:14) and that Christ on the cross paid
the penalty for the sins of the whole world so that God “might be just,
and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus” (Romans 3:25–26).
Tragically, Calvinism limits Christ’s redemption and God’s infinite mercy
and love.
Amazingly, however, most Calvinists claim to see no contradiction
between the God of love presented in Scripture “who will have all men to
be saved” (1 Timothy 2:4) and the God who “saves whom he wills of his
mere good pleasure”20 and leaves the rest of mankind without His mercy
and grace because “it was his good pleasure to doom [them] to
destruction.”21
In attempting to escape the clear implications of this lamentable
doctrine, Calvinists argue that although totally depraved man can do
nothing but reject the gospel, God is nevertheless perfectly just in holding
him accountable and damning him. Paul explains how God can justly
forgive sinners (Romans 3:21–30), but nowhere does Scripture explain
how God could justly condemn for sinning those incapable of anything
else, whom He predestined to sin and to eternal destruction before they
were born.
With no apparent sense of irony, a Calvinist friend who critiqued the
first rough draft of the manuscript for this book, claiming I didn’t
“understand Calvinism,” wrote:
Nor do Calvinists deny that men can respond to the gospel or [teach] that God
withholds the ability to respond. They do respond...negatively. And this response
has nothing to do with God withholding anything.... God does not prevent man
from coming to Him. They are free to come to Him if they want to. What God does
withhold is His mercy, which He is under no obligation to give since it is man’s
desire not to know God.22

Not a Question of Obligation

Of course, Calvinism’s God prevents the non-elect from coming to Him
by withholding the grace without which no one can believe. Furthermore,
He has predestined them to eternal damnation—nor did He give His Son
to die for them, according to the doctrine of Limited Atonement. Could
there be any stronger means of preventing the non-elect from being
saved through faith in Christ? What this friend apparently means is that
God withholds nothing that He is under obligation to bestow.
Of course God is under no obligation to extend mercy or grace to
anyone. By very definition, mercy and grace are completely without
obligation. Thus one cannot excuse the Calvinistic God’s failure to extend
grace and mercy to all by simply saying He is under no obligation to do so.
Obligation is not the basis for extending grace and mercy, but rather, love
and the desire to meet the sinner’s need.
All of God’s qualities are infinite and in perfect balance. Among those
qualities is mercy: “But thou, O Lord, art a God full of compassion, and
gracious, longsuffering, and plenteous in mercy and truth” (Psalms 86:15).
All through Scripture, it is made clear that God is infinite in mercy. He
requires of us that we “love mercy,” and He “delighteth in mercy” (Micah
7:18; 6:8). Paul tells us that God “is rich in mercy” (Ephesians 2:4), and
that He has pronounced both Jews and Gentiles “all in unbelief, that he
might have mercy upon all” (Romans 11:32).
Do any of these scriptures even hint that God limits His grace and
mercy to a select group? Not one scripture says so!
Contrary to Calvinism, the biblical accounts of God’s dealings with man
demonstrate that God both desires and lovingly, graciously, and
mercifully extends a genuine offer of repentance and salvation to all
mankind. The plain language of Scripture proclaims that God truly desires
to convince, to convict, and to save all who are lost—and that they all
have the capacity to turn to Him if they so desire. That conclusion is
impressed upon the reader by hundreds of clear statements in the Bible,
calling upon men to repent and turn to God. Calvinism, however, denies
the plain meaning of these scriptures.
Why Does God Strive?
The Calvinist insists that being spiritually dead in sin means that man
can no more hear the gospel or respond to God than if he were physically
dead. Yet in the very context of the first exposé of man’s wicked heart,
which the Calvinist offers as proof of Total Depravity, we hear God saying,
“My spirit shall not always strive with man” (Genesis 6:3).
How can there be a real “striving” if man is dead in sin and therefore
cannot even hear, much less be persuaded? Why would the Spirit of God
strive with a corpse? And how could God be sincerely striving to convince
those to believe for whom Christ did not die, and from whom He
withholds the faith to believe? The entire teaching of Calvinism denies
sincerity on God’s part in seemingly offering salvation to those He has no
intention of saving.
All through the Bible, we see God striving and pleading with man until,
at various times and with various persons, we are told that because of
man’s continued rebellion God ceased to strive with him: “so [He] gave
them up unto their own hearts’ lust” (Psalms 81:12); “Wherefore God
also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts”
(Romans 1:24).
To “give them up” indicates there was a time when God was genuinely
striving to convince and win them and had not given them up. But a
change has come in God’s actions toward them, a change not in God’s
heart or desire—which are unchangeable—but a change in His dealings
with those who have so hardened their hearts toward Him that there is
no point for Him to further strive with them.
If Calvinism were true, however, there could be no genuine striving at
all, no bona fide offer of repentance and faith and redemption, no sincere
desire on God’s part to see the non-elect saved. Indeed, for the Calvinist,
God strives with no one, because the salvation or doom of all is a matter
of His having predestined them to one or the other. There would be
neither purpose nor need for God to strive or plead with man if the
eternal destiny of both elect and non-elect has been fixed from a past
eternity by God’s decree.
If Calvinism were true, it would be meaningless for God to say that His
Spirit will no longer strive with man.
Caught in a Maze of Contradictions
Trying to deny this obvious inconsistency and thereby to distinguish
himself from “hyper-Calvinists,” John MacArthur, Jr., says, “God’s love is
for the world in general, the human race, all humanity.”23 As evidence, he
says, “…the fact that God promises to forgive…and even pleads with
sinners to repent—proves His love toward them.”24 Can MacArthur be
serious?! It proves God’s love for Him to plead with spiritual corpses who
can neither hear nor respond, whom He has not sovereignly chosen to
believe in Him,25 from whom He withholds the grace to believe and for
whom Christ did not die?
To show that they are not “hyper-Calvinists,” the “moderates” such as
MacArthur dare to say that God loves those who “by his eternal and
immutable counsel…it was his pleasure to doom to destruction”!26
Attempting to justify this clear contradiction, MacArthur proposes a
difference between “God’s will of decree (His eternal purpose) [and]
God’s will of desire. There is a distinction between God’s desire and His
eternal saving purpose, which must transcend His desires.” Where does
the Bible say that God’s purpose “must transcend His desires”? Such inner
conflict between purpose and desire is impossible for God! How could
God “desire” all men to be saved, yet not purpose or decree it?
Commenting on “desires all men to be saved” in 1 Timothy 2:4,
MacArthur writes, “In His eternal purpose, He chose only the elect out of
the world (John 17:6) and passed over the rest, leaving them to the
consequences of their sin….”27 In attempting to escape the stigma of
hyper-Calvinism, however, MacArthur entraps himself in the theory that
God desires something that He doesn’t bring to pass, though He could—a
clear contradiction as well as a denial of God’s omnipotence and a retreat
from a major Calvinist text, “who worketh all things after the counsel of
his own will” (Ephesians 1:11).
Is there a distinction between hyper- and moderate Calvinists? If so,
Calvin himself, who repeatedly made such statements as “by his eternal
providence they were before their birth doomed to eternal
destruction,”28 was “hyper.” But the founder of Calvinism can no more be
a hyper-Calvinist than the founder of Islam can be an extremist Muslim.
As Muhammad defines Islam, so Calvin defines Calvinism—otherwise it
should not be called Calvinism.
In fact, as we shall see, the predestination of the non-elect to eternal
torment, far from being hyper-Calvinism, is a basic tenet that flows
inevitably from its five points. Nor is it rational to claim that God really
loves those He never intended to save and for whom Christ did not die.
John Piper attempts to absolve moderates of being “hyper” by
claiming (like MacArthur) that God has “two wills” and that it is not
“divine schizophrenia” for God to will that all persons be saved (1 Timothy
2:4) and “…to elect [only] those who will actually be saved….”29 This is
double-talk! He goes so far as to say, “Every time the gospel is preached
to unbelievers it is a mercy of God that gives this opportunity for
salvation.”30 That preaching the gospel gives opportunity for salvation to
those for whom Christ did not die, whom God never had any intention of
saving and whom He in fact has already predestined to eternity in the
Lake of Fire, is the height of contradiction. It is, however, only one of
many impossible irrationalities which moderates attempt to maintain in
order to distance themselves from those they disparage as hyper-
Calvinists!

1. Arthur W. Pink, The Sovereignty of God (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 2nd prtg.
1984), 138.
2. Frank B. Beck, The Five Points of Calvinism (Lithgow, Australia: Covenanter Press, 2nd
Australian ed., 1986), 10.
3. George L. Bryson, The Five Points of Calvinism: “Weighed and Found Wanting” (Costa
Mesa, CA: The Word for Today, 1996), 36.
4. H. A. Ironside, What’s the Answer? (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1944), 43–44.
5. Frederic W. Farrar, A Manual of Christian Doctrine (The Alliance Press, n. d.), 76.
6. G. Campbell Morgan, The Westminster Pulpit (Grand Rapids, MI: Fleming H. Revell,
1954), II:306–307.
7. Kenneth J. Foreman, God’s Will and Ours (Richmond, VA: Outlook Publishers, 1954), 42.
8. John H. Gerstner, A Primer on Free Will (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed
Publishing Co., 1982), 10.
9. Pink, Sovereignty, foreword to first edition, unnumbered first page.
10. John C. Ryle, Expository Thoughts on the Gospel of John (Wm. Hunt and Co., 1883),
III:16,22.
11. W. R. White, Baptist Distinctives (Sunday School Board, SBC, 1946), 24–25.
12. Augustus H. Strong, Systematic Theology (Valley Forge, PA: Judson Press, 1907), 640.
13. W. H. Griffith Thomas, The Principles of Theology (London: Longmans, Green and Co.,
1930), 165, 180.
14. William L. Pettingill, Bible Questions Answered (Just A Word Inc., 3rd ed. 1935), 374.
15. William G. T. Shedd, Calvinism: Pure and Mixed (Carlisle, PA: The Banner of Truth Trust,
1999), 15.
16. Ibid.
17. Calvinist friend to Dave Hunt, critical comment in manuscript draft margin. On file.
18. Calvinist reviewer to Dave Hunt, note in manuscript draft margin. On file.
19. Edwin H. Palmer, the five points of calvinism (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, enlarged
ed. 20th prtg. 1980), 21.
20. John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, trans. Henry Beveridge (Grand Rapids,
MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1998 ed.), III: xxi, 1.
21. Ibid., III:xxi,7.
22. Reviewer to Dave Hunt, marginal comment, n. d. On file.
23. John MacArthur, Jr., The Love of God (Dallas, TX: Word Publishing, 1997), 86.
24. Ibid., 15.
25. John MacArthur, Jr., Saved Without a Doubt—MacArthur Study Series (Colorado Springs,
 CO: Chariot Victor Publishing, 1992), 58–59.
26. Calvin, Institutes, III:xxi, 7.
27. John MacArthur, The MacArthur Study Bible (Nashville, TN: Word Publishing, 1997),
1862.
28. Calvin, Institutes, III: xxi, 7.
29. John Piper, “Are There Two Wills in God?” in Still Sovereign: Contemporary Perspectives
on Election, Foreknowledge, and Grace, ed. Thomas R. Schreiner and Bruce A. Ware
(Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2000), 107.
30. John Piper and Pastoral Staff, “TULIP: What We Believe About the Five Points of
Calvinism: Position Paper of the Pastoral Staff” (Minneapolis, MN: Desiring God Ministries,
1997), 14.
9—The Truth About Human Depravity
CALVINISM NOT ONLY presents a feigned pleading and striving by God
for repentance from those whom He has already doomed. In addition, it
confronts us with the alleged “mystery” of a God of infinite mercy and
love who, nevertheless, doesn’t manifest love toward everyone and
therefore lets multitudes perish whom He could save. In fact, Calvin
himself declared that it is to God’s glory that He fills hell with those whom
He could just as well bring into heaven. This repulsive doctrine, Calvin
admits, comes from Augustine:
There is nothing inconsistent with this when we say, that God, according to the
good pleasure of his will...elects those whom he chooses for sons, while he rejects
and reprobates others. For fuller satisfaction...see Augustine Epist. 115, et ad
Bonif., Lib. ii, cap. 7.... The Lord therefore may show favour to whom he will,
because he is merciful; not show it to all, because he is a just judge.1

On the contrary, not showing mercy at all could accompany justice;

but not showing mercy to all when all are equally guilty is a perversion of
justice. Mercy can only be shown to the guilty on a righteous basis; and if
not, then justice has been corrupted. This fact poses a serious problem
for Calvinism, which John Piper, in his major attempt to justify Calvinism’s
God, fails to consider in its entire 220 pages.2 In revealing His glory to
Moses as “merciful and gracious, longsuffering and abundant in goodness
and truth,” God declares that He “will by no means clear the guilty”
(Exodus 34:6–7).
When Does “All” Not Include “All?”
Since God is both just and merciful, neither of these qualities can
triumph over the other. God can only be merciful justly, not in spite of His
justice. Thus God could only forgive sinners because the penalty for sin
was fully paid (Romans 3:19–31). And that the penalty was paid for all,
making it possible for God to justly and mercifully forgive all, and not just
an elect class, is declared repeatedly in Scripture—as the conscience God
has given us affirms. Surely all must agree with Spurgeon’s statement that
we have already quoted: “As it is my wish…[and] your wish…so it is God’s
wish that all men should be saved…. He is no less benevolent than we
are.”3
Would God undermine His own sincere desire for all to be saved by
predestining multitudes to eternal torment and withholding from them
the Irresistible Grace and regeneration without which His desire cannot
be fulfilled? Of course not! We can only conclude that God does not
prevent His own desire from being fulfilled. His desire is expressed in the
gospel, which man can believe or not believe, accept or reject.
The Bible’s clear language compels the reader to conclude that God
loves all, desires the salvation of all, and genuinely strives to convince
wicked men to repent and to accept His offer of salvation. Then why are
all not saved? Clearly, men have the capability of responding when drawn
by the Holy Spirit and convicted of their guilt and need, but though all are
drawn, some willingly repent and believe while others refuse.
The Bible repeatedly presents a God who so loves the whole world
that He sent His Son that “the world through him might be saved” (John
3:16; 1 John 4:14), who “will have all men to be saved” (1 Timothy 2:4)
and who “is not willing that any should perish” (2 Peter 3:9). The Bible
repeatedly presents Christ as the One “who gave himself a ransom for all”
(1 Timothy 2:6), who is “the Saviour of all men, specially of those that
believe” (1 Timothy 4:10), and Whose death provided a propitiation “for
the sins of the whole world” (1 John 2:2). Christ calls unto all who are
spiritually thirsty, hungry and weary of their sin’s heavy load, “come unto
me and I will give you rest,” living water, the bread of life, eternal life.
That invitation has touched the hearts of the thirsty, hungry, weary, and
heavy laden for two thousand years. Yet Calvinism attempts to make all
such promises apply to only a preordained elect.
Two Conflicting Views
Calvinism presents us with the alleged “mystery” of why God who is
love, and who is infinite in mercy toward all, lets billions go to hell whom
He could rescue. The Bible, on the other hand, confronts us with quite
another mystery: why anyone who is offered salvation as a free gift of
God’s grace chooses to reject it.
The answer to the first mystery is said to lie in the secret of God’s will.
The answer to the second is hidden in the hearts of those who reject God
and the salvation He offers. Why would any man reject Christ and thereby
consign himself to eternal torment? Ask him. The reason is hidden in his
will, not in God’s. Pusey writes:
There is something wonderfully impressive in the respect shown by the Creator to
the freedom of choice which has been bestowed upon the human race. In the
Christian scheme of salvation God becomes the suitor striving by extraordinary
means to win the affections of men. Christ stands at the door and knocks.... He
respects the moral freedom of man, and does not put forth His hand to destroy
that high prerogative.4

Viewed from the biblical perspective, no one who spends eternity in

the Lake of Fire can complain that he is there because God didn’t want
him in heaven. All of the damned will be tormented by the knowledge
that they are not there by God’s predestination but by their own
irrational and stubborn refusal to receive the salvation God provided and
freely offered. And God will be glorified by their eternal punishment,
because He did not pervert His justice by unjustly forgiving those who
refused salvation on His righteous terms.
The Bible presents a God whose justice, not lack of love, fills a hell with
those for whom He provided salvation but who refused to receive it. Of
the rich young ruler (Mark 10:17–22) we are clearly told that Christ
“beholding him loved him,” yet this one who was loved “went away
grieved,” unable to give up his possessions to follow Christ. From the
cross, Christ cried concerning those who crucified and rejected Him,
“Father, forgive them...” (Luke 23:34).
In direct contrast, Calvinism presents a God who fills hell with those
whom He could save but instead damns because He doesn’t love them.
These two different views of God are the major point of separation
between Calvinists and biblical non-Calvinists.
Here is the real issue that must be confronted in consideration of
TULIP: Is Calvinism or is it not a misrepresentation of the God of the Bible,
who is love? H. A. Ironside argued:
Turn to your Bible and read for yourself in the only two chapters in which this
word “predestinate” or “predestinated” is found. The first is Romans 8:29–30. The
other chapter is Ephesians 1:5,11. You will note that there is no reference in these
four verses to either Heaven or Hell, but to Christlikeness eventually. Nowhere are
we told in Scripture that God predestinated one man to be saved and another to
be lost. Men are to be saved or lost eternally because of their attitude toward the
Lord Jesus Christ.5

When Is Depravity Not Total?

To maintain their doctrine of Total Depravity, Calvinists must reconcile
it with the obvious fact that the most ungodly people are capable of some
morally good thoughts and deeds. Nor can that fact be explained away by
always attributing the ungodly’s good deeds to selfish motives. Some
unsaved soldiers have selflessly thrown themselves upon hand grenades
to save their buddies’ lives—an act of heroic compassion from which
many Christians would shrink.
Unquestionably, all human beings are capable of summoning a worldly
altruism that can be widely admired. Acknowledging this natural
goodness, a Calvinist author writes, “Total Depravity...does not mean that
man is as evil as he could be.”6 Yet how much more evil could one be than
for every thought of one’s heart to be only evil continually? And how can
the so-called totally depraved have good thoughts and do good deeds?
Calvinists contradict themselves continually in this regard. For example,
just before stating that “it is impossible for him [the non-Christian] to do
good...he is not even able to understand the good,”7 Palmer has
acknowledged what seems to be the opposite:
Albert Schweitzer is an example of one who denied biblical Christianity and yet
who put to shame many an orthodox Christian by his love and kindness. For other
examples of relative good, consider...the non-Christian who risks his life by dashing
before an oncoming truck to rescue a child...a blaspheming pagan who helps a
beggar...the Jew who donates his large estate for public recreation....8

Another Calvinist writer admits that even the most ungodly persons
“are able to love their children…sacrifice their own lives for the sake of
family...sometimes even for strangers...are honest...good people who do
good deeds.”9 Even some Nazi guards who had spent the day in torturing
and killing would come home in the evening and exhibit love and kindness
to their wives and children. Multitudes of ungodly people at times exhibit
much tenderness and honesty. Of many unsaved businessmen it can be
said, “His word is his bond,” even that he “sweareth to his own hurt, and
changeth not” (Psalm 15:4).
The Bible clearly teaches that the natural, unregenerated man can do
good, and it offers many examples. We have already quoted from
Romans 2 how unsaved Gentiles recognize God’s moral laws in their
consciences, seek to obey them, have guilt when they don’t, and even
judge one another by that standard. Yes, it says “there is none that doeth
good, no, not one” (Romans 3:12). But Jesus also said, “Ye do good to
them which do good to you...sinners also do even the same” (Luke 6:33).
We must take Scripture as a whole.
Can a single verse be found in Scripture that clearly declares that man
must be regenerated before he can believe the gospel? We are still
waiting for Calvinists to point out even one.
The examples both given in Scripture and seen in daily experience
force us to conclude that the declaration that “every imagination of the
thoughts of his heart was only evil continually” describes the general
attitude of the heart, not what it must produce at every moment of every
day—the propensity but not the necessity. Similar statements that sound
absolute, but are not, are found in praise of man. For example, God says
of David that he walked before Him with a “perfect heart,” and that he
was a “man after mine own heart, which shall fulfill all my will” (1Kings
15:3; Acts 13:22, etc.). Yet David displeased God a number of times, even
committing adultery and murder. In the same fashion, we must
understand the statements about man’s wickedness and sin as describing
his natural tendency but not his irresistible necessity.
The Emperor’s Clothes Again?
Many of the verses Calvinists use to support “T” (such as John 1:13 and
Romans 9:16) have nothing to do with the concept of Total Depravity. In
such passages we are simply told that by our own will we cannot force
ourselves upon God. He is the author of salvation, and it is all by His
mercy and grace, not by our effort or will, that we are saved. None of
such passages, however, declares that anyone is unable to believe the
gospel when it is presented to him with the convincing and convicting
power of the Holy Spirit.
Philippians 2:13 is also cited, but this is clearly talking about the
Christian working out in his life the salvation he has been given; it has
nothing to do with either total depravity or believing the gospel.
Calvinists consider the “T” in TULIP to be of paramount importance.
One of their writers argues that “the doctrine of total depravity [is] one of
the most important truths that needs to be re-emphasized in our day.” He
begins his booklet by associating those who reject the Calvinist definition
of total depravity with the remarks of professional wrestler Macho
Comacho who has no conviction of sin; with those who deny that we are
“sinners saved by grace”; with those who try to attract sinners with
excitement and avoid dealing with sin; with those who try to build up the
sinner’s self-esteem; with those who preach “a steady diet of positive
inspiration...reminiscent of Norman Vincent Peale and Dale Carnegie,”
etc.10 Yet these are all errors against which non-Calvinists write and
preach from scripture, just as much as Calvinists do, while rejecting the
unbiblical theory of Total Depravity.
The writer being quoted then credits the doctrine of Total Depravity
with uniquely 1) causing us to despair of ourselves and to cast ourselves
completely upon Christ alone for salvation, 2) humbling our pride, 3)
helping us to witness to sinners as a fellow sinner, 4) causing us to fear
trusting ourselves and driving us to trust totally in the Lord, 5) causing us
to bear up under suffering without complaint, 6) giving us greater love
and forgiveness toward those who wrong us, and 7) moving us to greater
love and devotion to God for His amazing grace.11
One wonders how that author could seriously believe that those of us
who reject Calvinism’s peculiar definition of Total Depravity are therefore
lacking in these supposedly unique benefits, which he credits exclusively
to the doctrine of Total Depravity!
When You’re Dead, Are You Dead?
Another major argument the Calvinist uses for Total Depravity is that
by nature we are all “dead in trespasses and in sins” (Ephesians 2:1;
Colossians 2:13). Sproul calls this statement “A predestination passage
par excellence.”12 Continuing the fallacious equating of spiritual death to
physical death, Gordon H. Clark writes, “A dead man cannot exercise faith
in Jesus Christ.”13 Of course, but neither can a dead man reject Christ, nor
can he even sin. Nevertheless, James R. White, quoted above, whose
book is endorsed by a host of evangelical leaders, continuing this analogy,
writes:
 The fallen sons of Adam are dead in sin, incapable of even the first move toward
God...filled with the effect of depravity and alienation from God....14

Where does the Bible say “incapable of even the first move toward
God”? It doesn’t! We are just as clearly told that Christians are “dead to
sin” (Romans 6:2,7,11, etc.). Does that mean that they are therefore
“incapable of the first move toward” sin? Certainly not. Take a human
understanding of “dead,” mix it together with the young John Calvin’s
immature understanding of God’s Word, tainted by Augustinian
philosophy, stir it all up, and out comes the theory of Total Depravity.
Such humanistic reasoning leads to absurdities like the following from
Palmer:
The biblical picture, however, is of a man at the bottom of the ocean.... He has
been there for a thousand years and the sharks have eaten his heart.... The man is
dead and is totally unable to ask any lifeguard to save him. If he is to be saved,
then a miracle must occur. He must be brought back to life and to the surface, and
then ask the guard to rescue him....

When Christ called to Lazarus to come out of the grave, Lazarus had no life in him
so that he could hear, sit up, and emerge.... If he was to be able to hear Jesus
calling him and to go to Him, then Jesus would have to make him alive. Jesus did
resurrect him and then Lazarus could respond.

These illustrations reveal the most central issue between the Arminian and the
Calvinist.... The Arminian has the cart before the horse. Man is dead in
sins...unable to ask for help unless God...makes him alive spiritually (Ephesians
2:5). Then, once he is born again, he can for the first time turn to Jesus, expressing
sorrow for his sins and asking Jesus to save him.15

Such reasoning may be emotionally appealing but it is neither biblical

nor rational. Sproul himself admits that “Spiritually dead people are still
biologically alive.”16 Even though Pink’s brand of Calvinism is too extreme
for many Calvinists, he rejects the fallacy of using physical death to
explain what it means to be dead in trespasses and sins:
A corpse in the cemetery is no suitable analogy of the natural man. A corpse in the
 cemetery is incapable of performing evil! A corpse cannot “despise and reject”
Christ (Isaiah 53:3), cannot “resist the Holy Spirit” (Acts 7:51), cannot disobey the
gospel (2 Thessalonians 1:8); but the natural man can and does do these things!17

When we come to the Calvinist’s interpretation of what it means for

man to be dead in sin and dead to God, the “T” of TULIP begins to overlap
with the teaching on Irresistible Grace. Therefore, the remainder of the
discussion concerning man’s spiritual death, and his alleged inability to
respond to the gospel, will be deferred until we reach the “I”.
Leopard’s Spots, Man’s Skin Color—Like Sin?
That such reasoned deductions are the Calvinist’s main weapons may
explain why their doctrines are so appealing to intellectuals. Yet this is in
spite of the fact that so many of Calvinism’s arguments are contradictory
to both the Bible and logic. White reasons:
Just as a person cannot change the color of their [sic] skin, or the leopard its spots,
so the one who practices evil cannot break the bondage of sin and start doing
good.... The New Testament continues the testimony of the radical depravity of
man...Paul begins with a dreadfully long discussion of the universal sinfulness of
man...Jew and Gentile alike.18

That no sinner can “break the bondage of sin” cannot be disputed. But
it is a quantum leap beyond that fact to declare that the prisoner of sin
cannot with great joy receive the deliverance Christ freely gives. What
prisoner would not welcome freedom? Ah, but to be truly free one must
be convicted of sin and believe the gospel. Granted. And where does it
say in Scripture that the Holy Spirit neglects to bring that conviction and
understanding to anyone? He does that for the elect—why not for all? In
fact, He does.
That one cannot change the color of his skin does not mean that one
cannot gladly receive the cleansing of sin through Christ’s blood. Such
analogies do not fit the actual situation any more than does the equating
of physical and spiritual death. Instead of allegorical examples, we need
clear teaching from God’s Word. Scripture, however, does not support
Calvinism.
The natural man is indeed enslaved by sin and would not of his own
initiative seek after God. But incapable of being convicted of his sin and
the judgment to come, or of believing the good news of the gospel? Not a
single verse in Scripture clearly states that proposition.
“Thy Faith Hath Saved Thee”
Calvinists are concerned that if man could do anything toward his
salvation, that fact would rob God of some of the credit for saving him.
Confusion arises through failing to recognize the obvious distinction
between man’s inability to do anything for his salvation (which is biblical)
and an alleged inability to believe the gospel (which is not biblical). To
believe the gospel and to receive Christ requires no work or worth on
man’s part, contributes nothing to his salvation, gives no credit to man,
and detracts in no way from God’s glory.
Failing to make this distinction, Hanko earnestly states that “the truth
of total depravity [i.e., inability to believe the gospel] is the only truth
which preserves intact the glory of God.”19 In the same way, Ross writes,
“The teaching of the natural man’s total inability concerning salvation is
not only scriptural, but it is a doctrine that gives all the glory to God in the
salvation of sinners.”20 Storms argues, “By making election conditional
upon something that man does, even if what he does is simply to repent
and believe the gospel, God’s grace is seriously compromised.”21
On the contrary, it is clearly not true that believing in and receiving
Christ gives any credit to man or detracts at all from the fact that it is
Christ alone who procures our redemption. Faith is not a work, nor does
any credit accrue to the person who simply believes.
The phrase “thy faith” is found eleven times in Scripture, while “your
faith” is found twenty-four times. Individuals are given credit that the
faith is their own. Never is there any indication that the person was
regenerated and then given faith to believe—or that the faith was a gift
from God as Calvinism insists it must be. Nor is there the least suggestion
that the exercise of faith by any of these individuals has detracted at all
from God’s glory.
Christ said “thy faith hath made thee whole” to the woman who was
healed by touching the hem of His garment (Matthew 9:22; Mark 5:34;
Luke 8:48), to the blind man outside Jericho (Mark 10:52), and to the
Samaritan healed of leprosy (Luke 17:19). Christ said, “Thy faith hath
saved thee,” to the sinful woman who washed His feet with her tears
(Luke 7:50) and to the blind man outside Jericho (Luke 18:42). “Great is
thy faith,” He said to the Canaanite woman who desired just a “crumb” of
blessing (Matthew 15:28). And to Peter, before he was converted, He
said, “I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not” (Luke 22:32). Each of
these statements is made to the unregenerate.
For Christians as well, one’s faith is still said to be that of the
individual: James says, “shew me thy faith” (James 2:18). Peter writes,
“that the trial of your faith, being much more precious than gold that
perisheth...” (1Peter 1:7). Otherwise, what would be the point of
rewards?
One cannot escape the countless times in the Bible when both
unsaved (for their salvation) and saved (for their walk with Christ and
fruitfulness) are commanded to believe in God, in His promises, in Christ,
and in His Word. Man has no relationship with God apart from faith. If
faith exercised by man detracts from God’s glory, it would be impossible
for man to have any relationship with God without lessening His glory.
Obviously, that is not the case.
Simple Confusion Over Inability
Yes, man is totally unable to contribute one iota to his salvation. It
does not follow, however, that he therefore cannot by faith receive the
salvation freely offered in Christ. It is confusion at this point that creates
the doctrine of Total Depravity and leads to the remainder of the Five
Points.
Spurgeon labored under no such delusion. Calvinists eagerly cite
Spurgeon for support, and there is no doubt that Spurgeon often declared
himself to be a Calvinist. Yet he frequently made statements that
contradicted Calvinism. The following is from a British scholar who
thoroughly knew Spurgeon’s writings and sermons:
Charles Haddon Spurgeon always claimed to be a Calvinist.... His mind was soaked
in the writings of the Puritan divines; but his intense zeal for the conversion of
souls led him to step outside the bounds of the creed he had inherited. His sermon
on “Compel them to come in” was criticized as Arminian and unsound. To his
critics he replied: “My Master set His seal on that message. I never preached a
sermon by which so many souls were won to God.... If it be thought an evil thing to
bid the sinner lay hold of eternal life, I will yet be more evil in this respect and
herein imitate my Lord and His apostles.”

More than once Spurgeon prayed, “Lord, hasten to bring in all Thine elect, and
then elect some more.” He seems to have used that phrase often in conversation,
and on his lips it was no mere badinage. With its definite rejection of a limited
atonement, it would have horrified John Calvin.... The truth seems to be that the
old Calvinistic phrases were often on Spurgeon’s lips but the genuine Calvinistic
meaning had gone out of them.

J. C. Carlile admits that “illogical as it may seem, Spurgeon’s Calvinism was of such
a character that while he proclaimed the majesty of God he did not hesitate to
ascribe freedom of will to man and to insist that any man might find in Jesus Christ
deliverance from the power of sin (emphasis added).”22

Scripture repeatedly states that man is dead in sin and in bondage to

sin, that his heart is desperately wicked, that his thoughts are evil from
his youth, and that he is a rebel against God by nature and practice. There
is no statement, however, that he is totally depraved as defined by the
“T” in TULIP. No matter how horrifyingly the Bible presents the evil of the
human heart, never does it teach Calvinism’s peculiar Total Depravity.
That will be seen more clearly as we move on to the other four points of
Calvinism and contrast them with Scripture.

1. John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, trans. Henry Beveridge (Grand Rapids,
MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1998 ed.), III:xxiii, 10–11.
2. John Piper, The Justification of God: An Exegetical and Theological Study of Romans 9:1–
23 (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2000).
3. C. H. Spurgeon, Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpet, vol 26, 49-52.
4. Edward B. Pusey, What Is Of Faith As To Everlasting Punishment? (England: James Parker
and Co., 1881), 103–104.
5. H. A. Ironside, Full Assurance (Chicago, IL: Moody Press, 1937), 93–94.
6. James R. White, The Potter’s Freedom (Amityville, NY: Calvary Press Publishing, 2000),
39.
7. Edwin H. Palmer, the five points of calvinism (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, enlarged
ed. 20th prtg. 1980), 15.
8. Ibid., 11.
9. Steven J. Cole, Total Depravity (Flagstaff AZ, 1999), 3.
10. Ibid., 1–3.
11. Ibid., 9–13.
12. R. C. Sproul, Chosen by God (Carol Stream, IL: Tyndale House Publishers Inc., 1986),
113.
13. Gordon H. Clark, The Biblical Doctrine of Man (Jefferson, MD: The Trinity Foundation,
1984), 102.
14. White, Potter’s, 75.
15. Palmer, five points, 18–19.
16. Sproul, Chosen, 120.
17. Arthur W. Pink, Studies in the Scriptures (n. p., 1927), 250–61; cited in Samuel Fisk,
Election and Predestination (England: Penfold Book and Bible House, 1997), 155.
18. White, Potter’s, 80–81.
19. Herman Hanko, in Herman Hanko, Homer C. Hoeksema, and Gise J. Van Baren, The Five
Points of Calvinism (Grandville, MI: Reformed Free Publishing Association, 1976), 23.
20. Tom Ross, Abandoned Truth: The Doctrines of Grace (Providence Baptist Church, 1991),
45.
21. C. Samuel Storms, Chosen for Life (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1987), 55.
22. A. C. Underwood, A History of the English Baptists (The Baptist Union of Great Britain
and Ireland, 1947), 203–206; cited in Fisk, Election and Predestination (England: Penfold
Book and Bible House, 1997), 69–70.
10—A Distorted Sovereignty
Having seen that Total Depravity is a key doctrine of Calvinism, we
need to understand that behind this belief is something even more
fundamental: a grave misunderstanding concerning the sovereignty of
God. Singer boasts, “The secret grandeur of Calvin’s theology lies in his
grasp of the biblical teaching of the sovereignty of God.”1
In fact, Calvin did not grasp the biblical teaching, but distorted it.
Calvinism places such an exaggerated emphasis on sovereignty that it
does away with any real choice for man: “No person since Adam has ever
had a free will.... Every unsaved person is…free to go in only one
direction…free to go down.”2 One can, however, argue biblically, “Unless
a man is free to will there is no basis for believing that truth [exists] in any
field—science, theology, or philosophy.... Unless there is free will there is
no meaning to praise or blame [and] there is no sin.”3
The apparent tension between God’s sovereignty and man’s free will
has been a point of study and discussion—and, sadly, of contention—
among sincere Christians for centuries. Some have taken the approach of
C. I. Scofield, that these are two truths that must both be accepted but
that cannot be reconciled. “Both are wholly true, but the connecting and
reconciling truth has not been revealed.”4 In apparent agreement, James
M. Gray, a past president of Moody Bible Institute, suggested that “no
one finite mind could hold God’s…sovereignty and man’s free agency…
both equally at the same time. How necessary, however, that both be
duly emphasized!”5
Likewise, William L. Pettingill wrote, “God insists upon His sovereignty
and also upon man’s responsibility. Believe both and preach both, leaving
the task of ‘harmonizing’ with Him.”6 In a similar vein, A. T. Pierson,
although a leading Presbyterian, declared that both “the sovereign will of
God and the freedom of man” are taught in Scripture and that “if we
cannot reconcile these two, it is because the subject is so infinitely lifted
up above us. Man is free.... Thus the last great invitation in God’s Book is
an appeal to the will.”7 R. A. Torrey agreed that we should not “try to
explain away the clear teaching of the Word of God as to the sovereignty
of God [and] the freedom of the human will....”8
Unfortunately, neither Calvin nor many of his followers today have
been willing to accept both sides of this biblical teaching. The result has
been devastating in its consequences for the gospel: that man can only
reject Christ; he cannot accept and believe in Him unless he is sovereignly
regenerated by God. Calvinism refuses to accept what so many great
evangelists have recognized is vital. Edgar Mullins expresses very well the
essential balance that is missing:
Free will in man is as fundamental a truth as any other in the gospel and must
never be canceled in our doctrinal statements. Man would not be man without it
and God never robs us of our true moral manhood in saving us.... The decree of
salvation must be looked at as a whole to understand it. Some have looked at
God’s choice alone and ignored the means and the necessary choice on man’s
part.9

A Commendable but Mistaken Zeal

Talbot and Crampton assure us that “The sovereignty of God is…the
most basic principle of Calvinism…the foundation upon which all
[including Christianity itself] is built.”10 Boettner agrees: “The basic
principle of Calvinism is the sovereignty of God.”11 Such fervor for God’s
sovereignty is commendable. However, Calvinists have mistakenly made
God the effective cause of every event that occurs: “Whatever is done in
time is according to his [God’s] decree in eternity.”12 But would a Holy
God decree the evil that fills man’s heart and the world today? Surely not!
Calvinism denies to man any real choice concerning anything he thinks
or does. Spurgeon referred to “a class of strong-minded hard-headed
men who magnify sovereignty at the expense of [human]
responsibility.”13
The Calvinist mistakenly believes that if man could make a genuine
choice, even in his rebellion against God, it would be a denial that God is
sovereign. Thus God must be the cause of all sin, beginning with Adam
and Eve. Boettner argues, “Even the fall of Adam, and through him the fall
of the race, was not by chance or accident, but was so ordained in the
secret counsels of God.”14 That unhappy conclusion is necessitated by a
concept of sovereignty that is required neither by the Bible nor by logic.
We have noted the admission by some Calvinists that man is free to
respond to God. At the same time, however, the doctrine of Total
Depravity requires that he can respond only negatively and in opposition
to God. Of course, that is not freedom at all. Congdon points out:
Classical Calvinists may talk about man having a “free will,” but it is a very limited
freedom! That is, a person may choose to reject Christ—all people do—but only
those who have been elected may choose to accept Him. This is no “free will”! Are
the open invitations to trust Christ in the Bible actually a cruel hoax? I don’t think
so. Are all people free to put their trust in the Lord Jesus Christ as personal Savior
for their sin? Yes. That is why the call to missions is so urgent.15

Freedom to Rebel but Not to Repent?

How can there be any real freedom of choice if only one kind of choice
can be made, and one, at that, which has been decreed eternally? To call
this “free choice” is a fraud. It is, however, the only “freedom” Calvinism
can allow. Pink favorably quotes J. Denham Smith, whom he honors as a
“deeply taught servant of God”:
I believe in free will; but then it is a will only free to act according to nature.... The
sinner in his sinful nature could never have a will according to God. For this he
must be born again.16

Nowhere does the Bible support such a statement; and this is one of
Calvinism’s most grievous errors. Were Abraham and Moses “born again,”
i.e., regenerated? Isn’t that a New Testament term? What does Smith
mean by “a will according to God”? Even Christians don’t always do God’s
will. A desire to know God? Surely all men are expected to seek the Lord
while He may be found. That God promises to be found by those who
seek Him must imply that the unregenerate can seek Him.
Nor does it help the Calvinist to say that man can only will and act
according to his sinful nature and against God. How could it be God’s will
that man defy His law? If sinful acts are admitted to come from genuine
choice, then we have the same challenge to God’s sovereignty that the
Calvinist cannot allow. Either man has a free will, or his sin is all according
to God’s will. As we have seen, the latter is exactly what Calvin himself
taught and many Calvinists still believe, making God the author of evil.
Could it be that Adam’s nature was actually sinful, though God
pronounced him “good” when He created him? How else, except by free
will, can his sin be explained? The Calvinist escapes free will by declaring
that even the sin of Adam and Eve was foreordained and decreed by God.
Pink argues, “God foreordains everything which comes to pass. His
sovereign rule extends throughout the entire Universe and is over every
creature.... God initiates all things, regulates all things....”17 Then why did
Christ tell us to pray, “Thy will be done on earth...” if all is already
according to God’s will and decree?
It is fallacious to imagine that for God to be in control of His universe
He must foreordain and initiate everything. In fact, it would deny His
omniscience and omnipotence to suggest that God cannot foreknow and
control what He doesn’t foreordain, decree, and cause. Here again,
Calvinists are trapped in contradictions. Though he was a leading
Presbyterian theologian, A. A. Hodge recognized the severe consequences
of that extremist view of God’s sovereignty: “Everything is gone if free-
will is gone; the moral system is gone if free-will is gone....”18 At the same
time, however, he declared: “Foreordination is an act of the...benevolent
will of God from all eternity determining...all events...that come to
pass.”19
Confronting a Vital Distinction
For the Calvinist to uphold his extreme view of control, God must be
the cause of man’s total depravity and the negative response it produces.
There is no way to escape this conclusion. If God were not the cause of
man’s sin, man would be acting independently of God, and that cannot be
allowed for anything in the Calvinist scheme. It follows, then, that “He
[God] could…have prevented it [the fall and entrance of sin into the
world], but He did not prevent it: ergo, He willed it.”20 Thus one must
conclude, “It is even biblical to say that God has foreordained sin.”21
The only way, however, to defend God’s integrity, love, and
compassion in a world filled with sin and suffering is to acknowledge that
He has granted to man the power to choose for himself. It is thus man’s
fault and by his own free choice that sin and suffering are the common
experience of all mankind. God has provided full forgiveness of sins on a
righteous basis, and will eventually create a new universe into which sin
can never enter—a universe to be inhabited by all those who have
received the Lord Jesus Christ as Savior. God is exonerated and man alone
is to blame for sin and suffering. Such is the teaching of the Bible, as we
shall see in depth.
Calvinism rests upon a mistaken view of what it means for God to be
sovereign. Palmer tells us that God predestines untold multitudes to
everlasting torment “for the glory of His sovereign power over His
creatures....”22 Obviously, God could show His sovereign power over His
creatures in many ways other than by decreeing their eternal damnation,
a fate surely not required by sovereignty.
The Bible teaches that God sovereignly—without diminishing His
sovereignty—gave man the power to rebel against Him. Thus, sin is man’s
responsibility alone, by his free choice, not by God’s decree. Calvinism’s
basic error is a failure to see that God could sovereignly give to man the
power of genuine choice and still remain in control of the universe. To
acknowledge both sovereignty and free will would destroy the very
foundations of the entire Calvinist system.
This false view of God’s sovereignty is the Calvinists’ only justification
for God’s saving only a select group and damning the rest. If one asks how
a loving God could damn millions or perhaps billions whom He could have
saved, the answer is that it “pleased Him so to do.” If one persists and
asks why it pleased Him, the response is that the reason is hidden “in the
mystery of His will.”
Free will does not diminish God’s control over His universe. Being
omnipotent and omniscient, God can so arrange circumstances as to keep
man’s rebellion from frustrating His purposes. In fact, God can use man’s
free will to help fulfill His own plans, and He is thereby even more
glorified than if He decreed everything man does.
Hear it from Calvin and Calvinists
In his classic, the five points of calvinism, Edwin H. Palmer writes,
“Although sin and unbelief are contrary to what God commands (His
perceptive will), God has included them in His sovereign decree (ordained
them, caused them to certainly come to pass).... How is it that a holy God,
who hates sin, not only passively permits sin but also certainly and
efficaciously decrees that sin shall be? Our infinite God presents us with
some astounding truths....”23
“Astounding” is the wrong adjective. What Palmer admits astounds
even him, a man who dogmatically defends this doctrine, is appalling to
non-Calvinists, including even non-Christians. Palmer expounds further
upon this outrageous doctrine:
All things that happen in all the world at any time and in all history—whether with
inorganic matter, vegetation, animals, man, or angels (both the good and evil
 ones)—come to pass because God ordained them. Even sin—the fall of the devil
from heaven, the fall of Adam, and every evil thought, word, and deed in all of
history, including the worst sin of all, Judas’ betrayal of Christ—is included in the
eternal decree of our holy God.

[If] sin is outside the decree of God, then the vast percentage of human
actions...are removed from God’s plan. God’s power is reduced to the forces of
nature.... Sin is not only foreknown by God, it is also foreordained by God. In fact,
because God foreordained it, He foreknew it. Calvin is very clear on this point:
“Man wills with an evil will what God wills with a good will....”24

There is neither biblical nor rational support for such dogma. Surely
God in His infinite power and foreknowledge could fit into His plan even
the most rebellious thoughts and deeds of mankind. He is perfectly able
to frustrate, prevent, or use man’s plans and deeds to fulfill His will, and
He can do so without destroying man’s ability to exercise free choice. To
make God the author of sin is to blasphemously misrepresent Him.
Why would an infinitely holy God ruin his own creation by purposely
creating sin? Why invent the elaborate story of “casting fallen angels out
of heaven”? Why cause mankind to sin in order to “forgive” them? How
would that glorify God? Instead, in Calvinism God becomes like the
person who sets a forest fire so he can “discover” it, put it out, and be a
hero. It also turns God into a fraud who pretends that Satan, though
God’s own intentional creation, was His enemy. How absurd!
Limiting God
Furthermore, why would God need to foreordain something in order
to foreknow it? Obviously, if God can only know what He himself has
decreed, and would be taken by surprise if man had free choice, then His
knowledge would not be infinite (i.e., God would not be omniscient).
Yet Calvinists persist in this unbiblical and irrational doctrine, which
they imagine defends God’s sovereignty, but actually diminishes it: “If
God did not foreordain all things, then He could not know the future. God
foreknows and knows all things because He decreed all things to be.”25
On the contrary, God does not have to decree human thoughts and
actions to foreknow them. He knows all beforehand because He is
omniscient.
The contemporary Calvinists we are quoting are expressing the very
heart of Calvinism. They are being true to John Calvin, who in turn
reminds us that the same was taught by Augustine. The latter has been
described as the first of the early so-called Church Fathers who “taught
the absolute sovereignty of God.”26
In his Institutes, Calvin acknowledged his debt to Augustine concerning
God’s predetermination of mankind’s every thought, word, and deed,
good or bad, including all evil committed:
[W]e hold that God is the disposer and ruler of all things—that from the remotest
eternity, according to his own wisdom, he decreed...that, by his providence, not
heaven and earth and inanimate creatures only, but also the counsels and wills of
men are so governed as to move exactly in the course which he has destined....

In short, Augustine everywhere teaches…that there cannot be a greater absurdity

than to hold that anything is done without the ordination of God; because it would
happen at random. For which reason, he also excludes the contingency which
depends on human will, maintaining a little further on, in clearer terms, that no
cause must be sought for but the will of God.... I say, then, that…the order,
method, end, and necessity of events, are…produced by the will of God....27

An Irrational Position
Augustine did say that all wills are subject to the will of God, but he did
not go as far as Calvin carries him. Moreover, Calvin leaps further into a
number of fallacies that have been perpetuated to this day. Obviously,
contrary to Calvin, actions by the free will of humans do not happen at
random. If they did, our entire judicial system would break down, since
rape, murder, robbery, and all other crimes would have to be viewed as
random events beyond their perpetrators’ moral responsibility or control.
This is, of course, nonsense.
 Ironically, Pink attempts to avoid the intolerable consequences of
Calvin’s strong statements by also appealing to Augustine: “Let it be
emphatically said that God does not produce the sinful dispositions of any
of His creatures, though He does restrain and direct them to the
accomplishing of His own purposes. Hence He is neither the Author nor
the Approver of sin. This distinction was expressed thus by Augustine:
‘that men’s sin proceeds from themselves; that in sinning they perform
this or that action, is from the power of God who divideth the darkness
according to His pleasure.’”28
Yet Calvin himself is already on record, and echoed by many of his
followers today, that God is the cause and thus the author of every
thought, word, and deed. Pink, like Palmer, has often said the same!
Without that conclusion, though it is repugnant to man’s God-given
conscience, Calvinism’s sovereignty won’t hold up, nor will its five points.
Is This the God of the Bible?
The human conscience and sense of right and wrong—which man has
received from God himself—cry out in revulsion against such teaching.
Have not Calvin and Augustine misrepresented the loving, merciful God of
the Bible? Did God create us to be mere puppets, with Him pulling the
strings? Is our innate sense of making genuine choices of our own
volition, sometimes rationally and at other times impulsively or even out
of lust, a total delusion?
God appeals to human reason: “Come now and let us reason together,
saith the Lord” (Isaiah 1:18). No one can engage in reason without making
choices between differing opinions, theories, options, or possible courses
of action. Thus, without the power of choice, man is not a rational being.
And surely, without the power to make genuine choices man could not be
a morally responsible being, accountable to his Creator.
All through the Bible, man is called upon to choose between time and
eternity, between Satan and God, between evil and good, between self
and Christ. Jonathan Edwards affirmed that “an act of the will is the same
as an act of choosing or choice.”29 Nor is there any reason biblically,
scientifically, or logically why man—who makes choices of all kinds daily
—could not also, without first being regenerated, choose between good
and evil, God and Satan, and genuinely open his heart to Christ.
Palmer calls it a paradox that “although man is totally depraved and
unable to believe, and that although faith is a gift of God produced by the
irresistible work of the Holy Spirit, nevertheless, it is up to man to believe.
He has the duty to obey God’s command to believe.”30 This is no paradox;
it is an absurdity. No one can justly be held accountable for failing to do
what it is impossible for him to do.
Could it be true that we really have no choice, but that God causes us
to do whatever we do, having predestined our every thought, word, and
deed? That certainly is not a perception held in ordinary experience, as
Augustine himself argued. Yet, though so contrary to common sense, the
Calvinist is forced to accept this view in order to support his system.
Augustine, as will be shown in the next chapter, believed in man’s free
will, while Luther taught that man’s will is in bondage to sin. Calvin says
that the sin to which we are in bondage was decreed by God, and thus
there is no escape except by God’s sovereign act. If such is the case, then
it is God who holds man in sin’s bondage!
Nowhere does the Bible state that God’s sovereignty requires that
man has no power to make a genuine choice, moral or otherwise.
Obviously, if God’s sovereignty makes man totally incapable of any moral
choice, then God must sovereignly cause him to believe the gospel. Thus,
the five points of Calvinism actually flow from this erroneous view of
sovereignty.
A Merciless Sovereignty
Calvin’s God plays into the hands of atheists who justly charge that an
all-powerful “God” who causes men to sin and then condemns them for
doing so is a monster. Will Durant was not a Christian, but one must take
his complaint about Calvin seriously: “...we will agree that even error lives
because it serves some vital need. But we shall always find it hard to love
the man who darkened the human soul with the most absurd and
blasphemous conception of God in all the long and honored history of
nonsense.”31
Following Calvin’s lead, and with no apparent realization of the
blasphemy he expresses against the God who is love, Palmer writes:
The Bible has well over a hundred examples in which God brought sin to pass....
This is the awesome biblical asymmetry: God ordains sin, and man is to blame. We
cannot comprehend this. If all things are ordained by God—including sin and
unbelief—then God has ordained who will be unbelievers.... It is essential to
establish the biblical data on the foreordination of sin.32

This is not “awesome” but repugnant to conscience and a libel upon

God’s character—nor is it biblical. Palmer quotes “scores of texts that
[allegedly] indicate sin is foreordained by God.”33 In fact, none of the
biblical passages he cites supports that horrifying thesis.
James Orr, editor of the original International Standard Bible
Encyclopedia, called this doctrine “one which no plea of logical
consistency will ever get the human mind to accept and which is bound to
provoke revolt against the whole system with which it is associated.”34
King James, who had sent a delegation to the Synod of Dort, referred to
“that infamous decree of the late Synod, and the decision of that
detestable formulary, by which the far greater part of the human race are
condemned to hell for no other reason, than the mere will of God,
without any regard to sin, the necessity of sinning, as well as that of being
damned, being fastened on them by that great nail of the decree before-
mentioned”35 [emphasis in original].
Attempting to justify this doctrine, so many Calvinists have responded
to me in discussions, in letters, and in comments written in the margin of
preliminary manuscripts I sent to them for review, “God is under no
obligation to extend His grace to those whom He predestines to eternal
judgment.” Of course God is under no obligation to any man for anything.
As we have already noted, however, grace and mercy do not flow from
obligation but rather from God’s love. Nor can God’s perfect holiness and
justice be compromised in the process. Evaluating a popular Calvinist
author, Zane Hodges writes,
The result of [Michael S.] Horton’s theology is that non-elect people are hopelessly
bound for hell because God declines to regenerate them…. The picture of God that
emerges from this is a hideous distortion of His loving character and nature. It is
not surprising, therefore, to find Horton also writing: “He [God] cannot love us
directly because of our sinfulness, but he can love us in union with Christ, because
Christ is the one the Father loves.”36 What this amounts to is that God does not
“directly” love anyone unless first He regenerates him or her, since “regeneration
is the commencement of union.” In other words, God does not love the elect until
they are regenerated, and He never loves the non-elect at all.37

1. C. Gregg Singer, John Calvin: His Roots and Fruits (Abingdon Press, 1989), 32.
2. W. E. Best, Free Grace Versus Free Will (Houston, TX: W. E. Best Books Missionary
Trust, 1977], 20.
3. Peter A. Bertocci, Free Will, Responsibility, and Grace (Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press,
1957), 22, 96.
4. C. I. Scofield, Scofield Bible Correspondence Course (Chicago, IL: Moody Bible Institute,
1907), III:445.
5. James M. Gray, Bible Problems Explained (Grand Rapids, MI: Fleming H. Revell, 3rd ed.
1913), 45.
6. William L. Pettingill, Bible Questions Answered (Just A Word Inc., 3rd ed. 1935), 209.
7. Arthur T. Pierson, The Believer’s Life: Its Past, Present, and Future Tenses (London:
Morgan and Scott, 1905), 24–30.
8. Reuben A. Torrey, The Importance and Value of Proper Bible Study (Chicago, IL: Moody
Press, 1921), 80–81.
 9. Edgar Y. Mullins, Baptist Beliefs (Valley Forge, PA: Judson Press, 4th ed. 1925), 27.
10. Kenneth G. Talbot and W. Gary Crampton, Calvinism, Hyper-Calvinism and Arminianism
(Edmonton, AB: Still Waters Revival Books, 1990), 14.
11. Loraine Boettner, The Reformed Faith (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed
Publishing Co., 1983), 2.
12. John Gill, A Body of Doctrinal and Practical Divinity (Paris, AR: Baptist Standard Bearer,
1987), 173.
13. Charles Haddon Spurgeon, “God’s Will and Man’s Will,” No. 442 (Newington,
Metropolitan Tabernacle; sermon delivered Sunday morning, March 30, 1862).
14. Loraine Boettner, The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian
and Reformed Publishing Co., 1932), 234.
15. Philip F. Congdon, “Soteriological Implications of Five-point Calvinism,” Journal of the
Grace Evangelical Society, Autumn 1995, 8:15, 55–68.
16. Arthur W. Pink, The Sovereignty of God (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 2nd prtg.
1986), 138–39.
17. Ibid., 240.
18. A. A. Hodge, quoted in D. A. Carson, Divine Sovereignty and Human Responsibility
(Atlanta, GA: John Knox Press, 1981), 207.
19. A. A. Hodge, Outlines of Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1972), 201-202.
20. Jerom Zanchius, The Doctrine of Absolute Predestination, trans. Augustus M. Toplady
(Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1977), 88.
21. Edwin H. Palmer, the five points of calvinism (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, enlarged
ed., 20th prtg. 1999), 82.
22. Ibid., 95, 124–35.
23. Ibid., 95, 97–100, 116.
24. Ibid.
25. David S. West, The Baptist Examiner, March 18, 1989, 5; cited in Laurence M. Vance, The
Other Side of Calvinism (Pensacola, FL: Vance Publications, rev. ed. 1999), 255.
26. C. Norman Sellers, Election and Perseverance (Haysville, NC: Schoettle Publishing Co.,
1987), 3.
27. John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, trans. Henry Beveridge (Grand Rapids,
MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1998 ed.), I: xvi, 6,8,9.
28. Pink, Sovereignty, 156.
29. Jonathan Edwards, Freedom of the Will, ed. Paul Ramsey (New Haven, Ct: Yale University
Press, 1957), 137.
30. Palmer, Sovereignty, 87.
31. Will Durant, “The Reformation,” Pt. VI of The Story of Civilization (New York: Simon and
 Schuster, 1957), 90.
32. Palmer, Sovereignty, 97–100,116.
33. Ibid., 16.
34. Quoted in Alan P. F. Sell, The Great Debate (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1982),
7.
35. In Jacobus Arminius, The Works of James Arminius, trans. James and William Nichols
(Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1986), 1:213.
36. Quoting from Michael S. Horton, ed., Christ the Lord: The Reformation and Lordship
Salvation (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1992), 111.
37. Zane C. Hodges, “The New Puritanism, Pt 3: Michael S. Horton: Holy War With Unholy
Weapons,” Journal of the Grace Evangelical Society,” Spring 1994, 7:12, 17–29.
11—Sovereignty and Free Will
ONE OFTEN HEARS Christians say, “God is in control; He’s still on the
throne.” But what does that mean? Was God not in control when Satan
rebelled and when Adam and Eve disobeyed, but now He is? Does God’s
being in control mean that all rape, murder, war, famine, suffering, and
evil is exactly what He planned and desires—as Palmer says, “— even the
moving of a finger...the mistake of a typist...”?1
That God is absolutely sovereign does not require that everything man
chooses to do or not to do is not his own choice at all but was
foreordained by God from eternity past. There is neither logical nor
biblical reason why a sovereign God by His own sovereign design could
not allow creatures made in His image the freedom of moral choice.
Indeed, He must, if man is to be more than a cardboard puppet!
In a chapter titled “the great mystery,” Palmer insists that the non-
Calvinist denies the sovereignty of God while insisting upon man’s power
of choice, while the “hyper-Calvinist denies the responsibility of man.” He
then suggests that the true
Calvinist…accepts both sides of the antinomy. He realizes that what he advocates
is ridiculous...impossible for man to harmonize these two sets of data. To say on
the one hand that God has made certain all that ever happens, and yet to say that
man is responsible for what he does? Nonsense! It must be one or the other. To
say that God foreordains the sin of Judas, and yet Judas is to blame? Foolishness...!
This is in accord with Paul, who said, “The word of the cross is to them that perish
foolishness” (1 Corinthians 1:18). The Greeks seek after wisdom and logic, and to
them the Calvinist is irrational.... So the Calvinist has to make up his mind: what is
his authority? His own human reason or the Word of God? If he answers, the
human reasoning powers, then, like the Arminian and hyper-Calvinist, he will have
to exclude one of the two parallel forces. But...he believes the Bible is God’s
Word...infallible and inerrant...[T]he apparent paradox of the sovereignty of God
and the responsibility of man...belongs to the Lord our God, and we should leave it
 there. We ought not to probe into the secret counsel of God.”2

On the contrary, there is no contradiction between God’s sovereignty

and man’s free will. That God can be sovereign and man be free to choose
is not an unfathomable mystery. But Calvinism denies free will by its
definition of sovereignty, making God the cause of all, including sin—yet
man is accountable for what God causes him to do. That proposition is
irrational. The confusion here should be obvious.
The “paradox” has been created by Calvinism’s distortion of
sovereignty. Accepting this manmade contradiction, J. I. Packer says we
must “refuse to regard the apparent inconsistency as real.”3 That
pronouncement sounds more like Christian Science, Positive Thinking, or
Positive Confession than biblical exegesis!
On the contrary, as Reimensnyder has said, “The free-will of man is the
most marvelous of the Creator’s works.”4 It is indeed the gift that makes
possible every other gift from God—for without the power to choose,
man could not consciously receive any moral or spiritual gift from God.
That fact, of course, is self-evident—and biblical. Repeatedly men and
women are called upon to make moral choices, to love and obey God, to
believe the gospel, and to receive Christ: “choose you this day whom ye
will serve” (Joshua 24:15); “if ye be willing and obedient, ye shall eat the
good of the land” (Isaiah 1:19); “Daniel purposed in his heart that he
would not defile himself” (Daniel 1:8), etc.
A Serious Contradiction
Unquestionably, men by their own choice can and do defy and disobey
God. The knowledge that men continually break God’s laws is common to
every human conscience and experience. In spite of the fact that He is
sovereign, and, obviously, without violating or lessening His sovereignty,
God’s will is continually being resisted and rejected as a result of the
rebellion of Satan and man. That both citizens and foreigners often
violate its laws does not deny a country’s sovereignty. Indeed,
lawbreakers will be punished if apprehended.
Even Christians do not always perfectly fulfill God’s will. If so, they
would have no sin to confess, and there would have been no need for the
Epistles or Christ’s letters to the seven churches of Asia or for the
judgment seat of Christ—or any other correction from God. Rewards, too,
would be meaningless without freewill.
The Bible itself contains many examples of men defying and disobeying
God in spite of His being sovereign and in control of His universe. Through
Isaiah the prophet, God laments, “I have nourished and brought up
children, and they have rebelled against me” (Isaiah 1:2). They are
offering sacrifices that He abhors, obviously not according to His will, and
they are living lives that dishonor Him. We are told that “the Pharisees
and lawyers [continuing the tradition of those before them] rejected the
counsel of God against themselves” (Luke 7:30). Quite clearly, everything
that happens in human affairs is not according to God’s will.
Throughout the Old Testament, God pleads with Israel to repent of her
rebellion, to return to Him and obey Him. Of Israel He says, “All day long I
have stretched forth my hands unto a disobedient and gainsaying people”
(Romans 10:21). Israel’s history provides more than ample proof that in
spite of His absolute sovereignty, man can and does rebel, and that the
sin he commits is not God’s will, much less His decree. Typical of His
continual lament is the following:
I sent unto you all my servants the prophets, rising early and sending them, saying,
Oh, do not this abominable thing that I hate. But they hearkened not, nor inclined
their ear to turn from their wickedness, to burn no incense unto other gods.
Wherefore my fury and mine anger was poured forth, and was kindled in the cities
of Judah and in the streets of Jerusalem; and they are wasted and desolate, as at
this day. (Jeremiah 44:4–6)

Surely, the idolatry that God calls “this abominable thing that I hate”
could not be according to His will. That His will is rejected by man’s
rebellion, however, just as the Ten Commandments are broken millions of
times each day around the world, does not in the least deny or weaken
His sovereignty.
What About Ephesians 1:11?
In light of such scriptures, how can we understand the statement that
God works “all things according to the counsel of His own will” (Ephesians
1:11)? Alvin Baker claims that this passage proves that “God works ‘all
things,’ including sin, according to His eternal will.”5 However, the word
“worketh” (KJV) is energeo, which doesn’t convey the idea of controlled
manipulation but of stimulation. See Colossians 1:29 and 2 Thessalonians
2:7, 9; see also “work out your own salvation...for it is God which worketh
in [energizes] you” (Philippians 2:12–13).
Nor does Paul say that God works all according to His will, but
according to the counsel of His will. There is a huge difference. Obviously,
the eternal “counsel” of His will must have allowed man the freedom to
love and obey, or to defy, his Creator—otherwise sin would be God’s will.
We could never conclude from this passage (and particularly not in light
of the many scriptures stating that men defy God’s will) that mankind’s
every thought, word, and deed is according to God’s perfect will, exactly
the way God desired and decreed it. Yet that is what Calvinists
erroneously conclude from Ephesians 1:11. To make that the case, as
Calvin did, portrays God as the effective cause of every sin ever
committed.
Christ asks us to pray, “Thy kingdom come Thy will be done in earth, as
it is in heaven” (Matthew 6:10; Luke 11:2). Why would Christ suggest such
a prayer, if everything is already according to God’s will and His eternal
decree—and if we are already in the kingdom of God with Satan bound,
as both Calvin and Augustine taught?
The objection is raised: “How dare you suggest that the omnipotent
God cannot effect His will!” Of course He can and does, but that in itself
does not say that God wills everything that happens. Without freedom to
do his own will, man would not be a morally responsible being, nor could
he be guilty of sin. That much is axiomatic.
Christ’s special commendation of “whosoever shall do the will of my
Father” (Matthew 12:50; Mark 3:35), and such statements from His lips as
“Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the
kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father” (Matthew
7:21), show very clearly that everyone doesn’t always fulfill God’s will.
The same truth is found in Isaiah 65:12, 1 Thessalonians 5:17–22,
Hebrews 10:36, 1 Peter 2:15–16, 1 John 2:17 and elsewhere. Clearly,
there is a distinction between what God desires and wills, and what He
allows.
An Important Distinction
Many scriptures show that God’s will can be, and is, defied by man.
Nor does Scripture ever suggest that there is any will or plan of God with
which man’s will and actions are by nature in perfect accord. Forster and
Marston point out, however, that “Some Christian writers seem to have
been unable to accept this.... If, as they believe, everything that happens
is God’s will, then the unrepentance and perishing of the wicked must
also be God’s will. Yet God himself says it is not his will....”6
On the fact of human rebellion and disobedience in defiance of God,
both Calvinists and non-Calvinists agree. The disagreement comes in the
explanation. The former say that even man’s rebellion has been decreed
sovereignly by God and that God’s will is the effective cause of it. The
latter explain sin as the result of man’s own selfish and evil desires and
deeds in defiance of God. Thereby man is justly held morally accountable,
because it is in the power of his will either to intend to obey or to
deliberately disobey God. The Calvinist, however, denies that man,
because he is “totally depraved,” has such a choice—yet holds him
accountable in spite of his alleged inability to act in any way except as
God has decreed.
Thus any independent choice on man’s part—even to sin—must be
denied in order to maintain TULIP. This is especially true when it comes to
salvation. Pink writes, “To say that the sinner’s salvation turns upon the
action of his own will, is another form of the God-dishonoring dogma of
salvation by human efforts…. Any movement of the will is a work....”7
On the contrary, there is a huge difference between deciding or willing
to do something and actually doing it—something that every lazy person
and procrastinator repeatedly demonstrates. Merely to will is not a work
at all. Paul clearly makes that distinction when he says, “To will is present
with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not” (Romans
7:18). Indeed, Paul’s will is not the major problem but rather his inability
even as a regenerated person to do the good he wills and to refrain from
the evil that his will rejects.
The gospel is “the power of God unto salvation to every one that
believeth” (Romans 1:16). The effective power that saves man is all of
God, but man receives salvation by faith—and only by faith. For the
condemned sinner simply to receive by faith the salvation that Christ
purchased on the Cross is no work on man’s part at all. Yet the Calvinist
insists that it is. For Pink to call receiving Christ by faith “human effort” is
to invent his own meaning of words.
The distinction between faith and works is so clear in Scripture that we
need not belabor the point.
It is the Calvinists’ extreme view of God’s sovereignty that causes them
to reject the biblical teaching that salvation is offered freely to all.
Instead, they limit salvation to the elect. Otherwise, they argue, if man is
free either to accept or reject salvation, that leaves the final decision up
to man and places God at his mercy.
 “So are you suggesting,” they object, “that God wants to save all
mankind but lacks the power to do so? It is a denial of God’s omnipotence
and sovereignty if there is anything He desires but can’t accomplish.” Yet
MacArthur, Packer, Piper, and others say that God desires the salvation of
all yet doesn’t decree it. This is a real contradiction, whereas it is no
contradiction at all to say that God has given man the free choice of
whether to receive Christ or not.
In fact, power has no relationship to grace and love, which provide
salvation. Moreover, as we shall see, there are many things God cannot
do, and a lack of “power” is not the reason for any of them, nor is His
sovereignty mitigated in the least.
What a Sovereign God Cannot Do
Vance points out, “The Calvinist perception of God as being absolutely
sovereign is very much accurate; however, that doesn’t mean that it takes
precedence over his other attributes.”8 Clearly, God’s ability and even His
right to act in His sovereignty are only exercised in harmony with His
other attributes, which must all remain in perfect balance. Calvinism
destroys that balance. It puts such emphasis upon sovereignty that God’s
other qualities are made inconsequential by comparison, and God is
presented as acting out of character. That is why this book is subtitled,
Calvinism’s Misrepresentation of God.
Throughout history, sovereign despots have misused their sovereignty
for their own evil purposes. Obviously, however, God employs His
sovereignty not as a despot but in love, grace, mercy, kindness, justice,
and truth—all in perfect symmetry with His total character and all of His
attributes. Indeed, He cannot act despotically or use His sovereignty for
evil. Cannot? Yes, cannot.
“Heresy!” cries someone. “God is infinite in power; there is nothing He
cannot do.” Really? The very fact that He is infinite in power means He
cannot fail. There is much else that finite beings routinely do but that the
infinite, absolutely sovereign God cannot do because He is God. He
cannot travel because He is omnipresent. He cannot lie, cheat, steal, be
mistaken, contradict Himself, act contrary to His character, etc. Nor did
God will any of this in man. To will sin in others would be the same as to
practice it Himself—a fact that Calvinists overlook.
What God cannot do is not in spite of who He is, but because of who
He is. Thus Augustine wrote, “Wherefore, He cannot do some things for
the very reason that He is omnipotent.”9 There are things God cannot do,
because to do them would violate His very character. He cannot deny or
contradict Himself. He cannot change. He cannot go back on His Word.
God Can Neither Tempt Nor Be Tempted
Scripture must be taken in context and compared with Scripture; one
isolated verse cannot become the rule. Jesus said, “With God all things
are possible” (Matthew 19:26). Yet it is impossible for God to do evil, to
cause others to do evil, or even to entice anyone into evil. This is clearly
stated in Scripture: “Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of
God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any
man...” (James 1:13–14).
What about instances in Scripture where the Bible says God tempted
someone, or was tempted Himself—for example, “God did tempt
Abraham” (Genesis 22:1)? The Hebrew word there and throughout the
Old Testament is nacah, which means to test or prove, as in assaying the
purity of a metal. It has nothing to do with tempting to sin. God was
testing Abraham’s faith and obedience.
As for God being tempted, Israel was warned, “Ye shall not tempt the
Lord your God” (Deuteronomy 6:16). They had done so at Massah, in
demanding water: “they tempted the LORD, saying, Is the LORD among us,
or not?” (Exodus 17:7). Later they “tempted God in their heart by asking
meat for their lust…they said, Can God furnish a table in the wilderness?
Yea…they tempted and provoked the most high God” (Psalms
78:18,41,56).
Clearly, God was not being tempted to do evil—an impossibility. But
instead of waiting upon Him in patient trust to meet their needs, His
people were demanding that He prove His power by giving them what
they wanted to satisfy their lusts. Their “temptation” of God was a
provocation that put Him in the position either of giving in to their desire
or of punishing them for rebellion.
When Jesus was “tempted of the devil” to cast himself from the
pinnacle of the temple to prove the promise of God that angels would
bear Him up in their hands, He quoted Deuteronomy 6:16—“Thou shalt
not tempt the Lord thy God” (Matthew 4:1–11). In other words, it is one
thing to rely upon God to meet our needs as they arise and as He sees fit,
but it is something else to put ourselves deliberately in a situation where
we demand that God must act if we are to be rescued or protected.
In the quotation above, James goes on to say, “every man is tempted,
when he is drawn away of his own lust and enticed.” Temptation to evil
comes from within, not from without. The man who would never be
“tempted” by an opportunity to be dishonest in business may succumb to
the temptation to commit adultery and thus be dishonest with his wife.
God was not tempting Adam and Eve to sin when He told them not to
eat of a particular tree; He was testing them. Eve was tempted by her
own natural lust, her selfish desire. Even in innocence, mankind became
selfish and disobedient. We see this in very young infants, who as yet
presumably do not know the difference between right and wrong.
What God Cannot Do to Save Man
Furthermore, when it comes to salvation, there are three specific
things God cannot do. First of all, He cannot forgive sin without the
penalty being paid. In the Garden of Gethsemane the night before the
cross, Christ cried out in agony, “O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup
pass from me...” (Matthew 26:39). Surely had it been possible to provide
salvation without Christ paying the penalty demanded by His justice, the
Father would have allowed Him to escape the cross. We know, therefore,
that it was not possible for God to save man any other way. Even God’s
sovereign, omnipotent power cannot simply decree that sinners be
forgiven. This fact destroys the very foundation of Calvinism’s salvation
for the elect alone by sovereign decree.
Secondly, God cannot force a gift upon anyone. That fact also shows
that salvation for the elect cannot be by predestination. Salvation can
neither be earned nor merited—it can only be received as a gift from God.
And the recipient must be willing; the gift cannot be imposed by the giver
against the recipient’s will.
Finally, even God cannot force anyone to love Him or to accept His
love. Force cannot produce love. True love can only come voluntarily
from the heart.
By the very nature of giving and receiving, and of loving and receiving
love, man must have the power to choose freely from his heart as God
has sovereignly ordained—“if thou shalt…believe in thine heart…thou
shalt be saved” (Romans 10:9). The reception of God’s gift of salvation
and of God’s love (all in and through Jesus Christ and His sacrifice for our
sins) can only be by a free choice.
Christ repeatedly gave such invitations as “Come unto me, all ye that
labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest” (Matthew 11:28), or
“If any man thirst, let him come unto me, and drink” (John 7:37); and
“whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely” (Revelation 22:17).
Relying upon the ordinary meaning of words, we can only conclude from
Scripture that Christ is offering to all a gift that may be accepted or
rejected.
There is no question that salvation is a free gift of God’s grace: “For
God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son” (John 3:16);
“If thou knewest the gift of God” (John 4:10); “But not as the offence, so
also is the free gift” (Romans 5:15); “For the wages of sin is death, but the
gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord” (Romans 6:23);
“For by grace are ye saved…it is the gift of God” (Ephesians 2:8); “God
hath given to us eternal life” (1 John 5:11), etc. By its very nature, a gift
must be received by an act of the will. If forced upon the recipient, it is
not a gift.
Tragically, Calvinism undermines the very foundation of salvation and
man’s loving, trusting relationship with God through Christ.
Free Will Does Not Conflict With God’s Sovereignty
Literally hundreds of verses throughout the Bible offer salvation to all
who will believe and receive. The Calvinist objects that if man had the
choice of saying yes or no to Christ, he would have the final say in his
salvation, his destiny would be in his own hands, and God would be at his
mercy. Therefore, where the Bible seems to say that God desires all to be
saved and is offering salvation to all either to be accepted or rejected, the
Calvinist must limit the application only to the elect—and they must have
no choice. Thus Scripture’s clear meaning is changed to make it conform
to TULIP.
God’s sovereignty is not in question. The issue is what that means
biblically. The Calvinist argues that if God’s desire is for all men to be
saved—and obviously they are not all saved—then God’s will is frustrated
by rebellious, sinful men who by their wills have been able to overturn
God’s sovereignty. As a consequence of this mistaken view of sovereignty,
the plain meaning of numerous passages must be changed in order to
support TULIP. The Calvinist insists, “The heresy of free will dethrones
God and enthrones man.”10 In fact, this error was rejected by Augustine
himself.
Setting the Record Straight
 Clearly, there are a number of things a sovereign God cannot do, yet
none of these limitations impinges in the least upon His sovereignty. God
is not the less sovereign because He cannot lie or sin or change or deny
Himself, etc. These follow because of His sinless, holy, perfect character.
Nor is God any the less sovereign or lacking in power because He
cannot force anyone to love Him or to receive the gift of eternal life
through Jesus Christ. Power and love (and love’s gift) do not belong in the
same discussion. In fact, of the many things we have seen that God
cannot do, a lack of “power” or a lessening of sovereignty is not the
reason for any of them. Pusey points out that “It would be self-
contradictory, that Almighty God should create a free agent capable of
loving Him, without also being capable of rejecting His love.... Without
free-will we could not freely love God. Freedom is a condition of love.”11
Far from denying God’s sovereignty, to recognize that mankind has
been given by God the capacity to choose to love Him or not, and to
receive or reject the free gift of salvation, is to admit what God’s
sovereignty itself has lovingly and wonderfully provided. In His
sovereignty, God has so constituted the nature of a gift and of love that
man must have the power of choice or he cannot experience either one
from God’s gracious hand.
Nor could the power of choice challenge God’s sovereignty, since it is
God’s sovereignty that has bestowed this gift upon man and set the
conditions for loving, for receiving love, and for giving and receiving a gift.
Yet as Zane Hodges points out:
If there is one thing five-point Calvinists hold with vigorous tenacity, it is the belief
that there can be no human free will at all. With surprising illogic, they usually
argue that God cannot be sovereign if man is granted any degree of free will. But
this view of God actually diminishes the greatness of His sovereign power. For if
God cannot control a universe in which there is genuine free will, and is reduced to
the creation of “robots,” then such a God is of truly limited power indeed.12
 It is foolish to suggest that if man could reject Christ, that would put
him in control of either his own destiny or of God. God is in control. It is
He who makes the rules, sets the requirements for salvation, and
determines the consequences of either acceptance or rejection. God is no
less sovereign over those who reject Christ than He is over those who
accept Him. He is the one who has determined the conditions of salvation
and what will happen both to those who accept and to those who reject
His offer.
But the Calvinist, because of his extreme view of sovereignty, can no
more allow any man to say yes to Christ than he can allow him to say no.
This error, having destroyed the foundation for a genuine salvation,
creates a false one. And in order to support this false salvation that,
allegedly, God imposes upon an elect, Calvinism has had to invent its five
points. This fact will become ever more clear as we proceed.

1. Edwin H. Palmer, the five points of calvinism (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, enlarged
ed., 20th prtg. 1999), 25.
2. Ibid., 85–87.
3. J. I. Packer, Evangelism and the Sovereignty of God (Downer’s Grove, IL: InterVarsity
Press, 1961), 212.
4. Junius B. Reimensnyder, Doom Eternal (N. S. Quiney, 1880), 357; cited in Samuel Fisk,
Calvinistic Paths Retraced (Raleigh, NC: Biblical Evangelism Press, 1985), 223.
5. Alvin L. Baker, Berkower’s Doctrine of Election: Balance or Imbalance? (Phillipsburg, NJ:
Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1981), 174.
6. Roger T. Forster and V. Paul Marston, God’s Strategy in Human History (Bloomington,
MN: Bethany House Publishers, 1973), 32.
7. Arthur W. Pink, The Sovereignty of God (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 2nd prtg.
1986), 218.
8. David S. West, The Baptist Examiner, March 18, 1989, 5; cited in Laurence M. Vance, The
Other Side of Calvinism (Pensacola, FL: Vance Publications, rev. ed. 1999), 256–57.
9. Augustine, The City of God, trans. Marcus Dods; in Great Books of the Western World, ed.
Robert Maynard Hutchins and Mortimer J. Adler (Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc., 1952),
 18:V.10.
10. W. E. Best, Free Grace Versus Free Will (Houston, TX: W. E. Best Books Missionary
Trust, 1977), 35.
11. Edward B. Pusey, What Is Of Faith As To Everlasting Punishment? (James Parker and Co.,
1881), 22–24; cited in Fisk, Calvinistic, 222.
12. Zane C. Hodges, “The New Puritanism, Pt 3: Michael S. Horton: Holy War With Unholy
Weapons,” Journal of the Grace Evangelical Society, Spring 1994, 7:12.
12—Foreknowledge and Man’s Will
MANY THEOLOGIANS and philosophers seem to find a conflict also
between God’s foreknowledge and man’s free will. If God knows what will
happen before it happens, then it must happen as He foreknew, or His
fore-knowledge would be wrong. That being the case, how could anyone
be free to make a choice? To consider that question, we must define
some terms.
The biblical doctrine of foreknowledge simply states that God knows
everything that will happen before it happens. The psalmist’s statement,
“For there is not a word in my tongue, but, lo, O LORD, thou knowest it
altogether” (Psalm 139:4), tells us that God knows every thought and
word before we speak it—and has known it from eternity past—but does
not say that God’s foreknowledge causes these thoughts and words. At
the council of apostles and elders in Jerusalem, James stated clearly,
“Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world” (Acts
15:18). To know everything He would do, God must have known every
thought, word, and event that would ever occur. This biblical truth is
clearly necessary if God is to be omnipotent, omniscient, and
omnipresent, the Creator and Sustainer of all.
Unquestionably, from eternity past, God must have known everything.
That includes the motions of the stars and electrons, and the exact
location at any nanosecond of each atom and the earthly bodies they
comprise, large and small, animate and inanimate. God knew everything
that would happen to each one and how each would function. Before He
created the universe or men or angels, God knew every event that would
ever occur in heaven or in the physical universe, and thus necessarily
every thought, word, and deed of every human or angel that would ever
exist. This is what it means to be God and therefore to be omniscient.
Creator and Creation
This cornerstone truth of Scripture was stated well by Augustine: “For
to confess that God exists, and at the same time to deny that He has
foreknowledge of future things, is the most manifest folly.... But...we
[who] confess the most high and true God Himself, do confess His will,
supreme power, and prescience.”1 No one, however, stated God’s
foreknowledge more fully than the much defamed Arminius:
[God] knows all things possible, whether they be in the capability of God or of the
creature...imagination or enunciation...all things that could have an
existence...those which are necessary and contingent, good and bad, universal and
particular, future, present and past, excellent and vile; He knows things substantial
and accidental of every kind; the actions and passions, the modes and
circumstances...external words and deeds, internal thoughts, deliberations,
counsels, and determinations, and the entities of reason, whether complex or
simple.2

Calvinism, unfortunately, takes a far different view of foreknowledge,

which actually denigrates God’s omniscience: “If God did not foreordain
all things, then he could not know the future.”3 Without scriptural
support, Calvin declared that God “foresees the things which are to
happen, simply because he has decreed that they are so to happen....”4
Going even further, another author says, “The idea that God knows the
future without having planned it and without controlling it is totally
foreign to Scripture.”5 In fact, the opposite is the case. Nowhere does
Scripture say or even imply that God knows all beforehand only because
He has foreordained and caused it.
How, then, can God be sure that what He foreknows will happen and
that something will not intervene to change the future? Simply because
He is all-knowing, and therefore the future is as plain to Him as the past.
If God had to plan and cause something to happen or even to control its
occurrence in order to know it would take place, He would be limited in
His foreknowledge and therefore not the infinite, omniscient God that He
is. If the Calvinistic view is correct, then every detail of every crime and
disease and of the destruction to property and the human suffering and
loss of life and limb caused by natural disasters would be foreordained
and caused by God; otherwise, He would be ignorant of the future.
We are told that “one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a
thousand years as one day” (2 Peter 3:8); and that “a thousand years in
thy sight are but as yesterday when it is past, and as a watch in the night”
(Psalm 90:4). Some have attempted to find a hidden meaning in these
statements, but there is none.
The phrases “with the Lord” and “in thy sight” are the key to
understanding this rather simple and straightforward declaration. Time is
part of the physical universe, which God created out of nothing. God
himself is therefore outside of time. That is the simple truth in these two
scriptures.
As one scientist recently explained, “The actual existence of past,
present, and future is required by Einstein’s theory of relativity. All space
and time form a four-dimensional continuum that simply exists; the
theory does not permit time to be treated as a dimension in which the
future is open or incomplete.” He further explained:
From a Christian point of view, it is reasonable to conclude that the temporal and
the spatial extent of our universe were created together, and thus the entire four-
dimensional structure resides before [in the view of] its Creator in an eternal
present. Thus our modern scientific understanding of the nature of time fits quite
well with the Christian tradition that God has knowledge of all time, past, present,
and future: “Before Abraham was, I am.”6

Note that God does not say, “I was,” or “I will be.” He says, “I am.” He
is the self-existent One ever present to all events, whether past, present,
or future from our point of view.
God’s Continual Protection
God knows the future without His foreknowledge influencing it
because He views it as an outside observer. God is totally separate and
distinct from space, time, and matter. Therefore, just as He looks at the
universe from outside, so He sees past, present, and future from outside,
knowing it all at once.
We are finite and God is infinite; therefore, we could not possibly
understand how He knows the future. He has given us enough
intelligence, however, to understand that He must know it. As David said,
speaking for all mankind, “Such knowledge is too wonderful for me; it is
high, I cannot attain unto it” (Psalm 139:6).
Scripture makes it equally clear that God is no passive observer
entirely disinterested in events taking their own course. Keeping a
watchful eye and playing an active part, He fulfills His eternal purpose for
all creation. As the psalmist declared, “Say unto God, How terrible
[awesome] art thou in thy works...! Come and see the works of God: he is
terrible in his doing toward the children of men.... He ruleth by his power
for ever...” (Psalm 66:3, 5, 7).
God exerts His influence upon men and events (exactly as He has
foreknown He would from eternity past) in order to create the future for
us that He desires and has willed. In light of man’s willful intentions and
actions, whatever influence or action God has foreknown would be
necessary on His part to implement His plans would obviously also be part
of God’s foreknowledge—eliminating any necessity of emergency
adjustment.
At times all Christians have an awareness of God’s marvelous and
gracious intervention in their lives. “Just in time” intervention (the way
God, from our perspective, so often works) may seem like a last-minute
thought and action on His part, but that is clearly not the case. No doubt,
His good hand is always upon His people, but in ways beyond human
comprehension. As David said again:
 Thou has beset me behind and before, and laid thine hand upon me.... Whither
shall I go from thy spirit? or whither shall I flee from thy presence?... Into
heaven...in hell...the uttermost part of the sea; even there shall thy hand lead me,
and thy right hand shall hold me....

How precious also are thy thoughts unto me, O God! how great is the sum of
them! If I should count them, they are more in number than the sand: when I
awake, I am still with thee. (Psalm 139:5–18)

The Problem of Evil

It is an inescapable fact that, in spite of God’s foreknowledge and
sovereignty, evil predominates in human affairs. That God is not the
author of evil is clearly stated in the Bible, as we have already seen.
Therefore, we can only conclude that He has, in His sovereignty, given
man moral responsibility to be exercised with free choice. That men
choose wickedness is not what God desires for mankind. Total Depravity,
as defined by Calvinism, eliminates man’s faculty of free will:
Inasmuch as Adam’s offspring are born with sinful natures, they do not have the
ability to choose spiritual good over evil. Consequently, man’s will is no longer
free...from the dominion of sin...as Adam’s will was free before the fall.7

The Bible presents evil as the result of man’s free will choosing for self
instead of for God. The Calvinist, however, in denying human moral
freedom, makes God the cause of all evil, insisting that He “creates the
very thoughts and intents of the soul.”8 As Calvin declared:
The first man fell because the Lord deemed it meet that he should...because he
saw that his own glory would thereby be displayed.... Man therefore falls, divine
providence so ordaining, but he falls by his own fault.... I will not hesitate,
therefore, simply to confess with Augustine...that the destruction consequent
upon predestination is also most just.”9

This idea, however, is so contradictory to man’s God-given conscience

and sense of justice that Calvin spent much of his Institutes struggling
unsuccessfully to justify it. Calvin digs a hole from which no Calvinist to
this day has been able to escape. He does this by irrationally and
unbiblically insisting that God can only foreknow what He foreordains:
The decree, I admit, is dreadful; and yet it is impossible to deny that God foreknew
what the end of man was to be before he made him, and foreknew, because he
had so ordained by his decree.10

In defending God’s sovereignty, another Calvinist, at the same time

that he denies that man has a free will, implies that man’s will must exist
after all: “Free will is the invention of man, instigated by the devil.”11 How
can free will be man’s invention by an act of his will if his will doesn’t
exist? Calvin struggles with the problem of man’s will and is forced to
acknowledge that man is not rational without it:
I feel pleased with the well-known saying which has been borrowed from the
writings of Augustine, that man’s natural gifts were corrupted by sin, and his
supernatural gifts withdrawn.... [In fact, being a creature and not the Creator, man
never had “supernatural” gifts.]

For although there is still [after Adam’s fall] some residue of intelligence and
judgment as well as will [because] reason, by which man discerns between good
and evil...could not be entirely destroyed; but...a shapeless ruin is all that
remains...the will, because inseparable from the nature of man, did not perish, but
was so enslaved by depraved lusts as to be incapable of one righteous desire....

To charge the intellect with perpetual blindness so as to leave it no intelligence of

any description whatever, is repugnant not only to the Word of God, but to
common experience...the human mind [retains] a certain desire of investigating
truth...[but it] fails before it reaches the goal...falling away into vanity...unable,
from dulness, to pursue the right path...and, after various wanderings, stumbling
every now and then like one groping in darkness, at length gets so completely
bewildered....

Still, however, man’s efforts are not always so utterly fruitless as not to lead to
some results....12

Calvin carries on in this fashion page after page. Man has some
intelligence for discerning “between good and evil,” but that ability is “a
shapeless ruin....” What does that mean? He can’t tell us. The will did not
perish but was so enslaved as to be morally useless in desiring the good
which it dimly perceives. Man has some desire after truth, but is unable
due to “dulness” to pursue it fully, so that he becomes “completely
bewildered,” yet his efforts are not “so utterly fruitless as not to lead to
some results....” Every effort to extricate himself only causes Calvin to
sink deeper into the bog of his own contriving.
Far from supporting such assertions by careful exegesis of Scripture,
Calvin can’t provide one verse that even comes close to what he
theorizes. Indeed, what does he assert? He hedges, qualifies, and
contradicts himself so often that he really offers nothing but useless
double-talk.
Why Doesn’t God Stop Evil and Suffering?
Of course, sinful man and rebellious Satan must be blamed and God,
who is perfect in holiness, must be exonerated—but this is impossible if
God has predestined everything. Many pages and even chapters of the
Institutes are given to attempting to prove that everything man does,
including all evil, is foreordained of God, but that man is nevertheless
guilty and is justly punished by God for doing the very evil that God has
ordained.
(See for example Institutes I: xv-xviii; III: xxi-xxiv.)
Many of today’s Calvinists deny that Calvinism teaches that God causes
evil. Yet that is clearly what Calvin himself insisted upon: “That men do
nothing save at the secret instigation of God, and do not discuss and
deliberate on anything, but what he has previously decreed with himself,
and brings to pass by his secret direction, is proved by numberless clear
passages of Scripture.”13 In fact, there is no such Scripture—and Calvin’s
examples apply only to some men, not to all.
Could not the sinner blame for his sin and eternal suffering in the Lake
of Fire a God who allows him to choose only evil and not good? Who, by
eternal decree, sovereignly originated his evil thoughts and caused his evil
deeds and then in punishment for that evil predestined him to eternal
torment? But wait! Doesn’t Romans 9:19–22 declare that no man has the
right to complain against God? Paul asks: “Shall the thing formed say to
him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus? Hath not the potter
power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour,
and the other unto dishonour?” That important question will be dealt
with in depth later.
Why, if God is sovereign and all-powerful, doesn’t He intervene to stop
all evil? That is a meaningless question, however, if (as is claimed) God
has decreed the rampant evil and suffering that plague mankind. Why
would He undo what He has foreordained? Yet Calvinists insist that God
could stop all evil if He so desired, because He controls everything. But
how could God reverse what He has predestined? He cannot change His
mind or go back on His Word. Therefore, if He foreordained evil, He
cannot stop it. Here we uncover another contradiction.
The question cannot be escaped: Why would a good God who is love
decree evil and suffering for billions not only in this life but for eternity in
the Lake of Fire? That question is an embarrassment to at least some
Calvinists, such as R. C. Sproul and John Piper, because there is no rational
(much less biblical) answer within that system of theology. This was
admitted by Calvin himself: “I again ask how it is that the fall of Adam
involves so many nations with their infant children in eternal death
without remedy, unless that is so meet to God? Here the most loquacious
tongues must be dumb.”14
There is, of course, a biblical answer to the question of sin that
satisfies man’s God-given conscience. Man has genuine moral
responsibility to God because, beginning with Adam and Eve and coming
down to the present, “all have sinned” by their own free will, not by an
imposed divine decree. Therefore, any sovereign intervention short of
wiping out the human race would not solve the problem of evil, because
evil comes from within the heart of man.
Jesus said that from the human heart itself “proceed...evil thoughts,
murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies...”
(Matthew 15:19). The only solution short of destroying mankind, as God
almost did with the flood, is to completely change the heart. Calvinism
claims that God can do this through a sovereign “regeneration” of
whomever He pleases without any faith or understanding on man’s part.
If that were the case, He could have done so with Adam and Eve and with
all mankind, eliminating the sin and suffering in man’s entire history. If
the problem of sin is all God’s doing, then He could undo it as well—but
not if He has foreordained it!
On the contrary, because it was by man that sin entered the world, the
biblical solution is found in the man Christ Jesus alone (Romans 5:12–21).
Only through His death in payment of the just penalty for our sins, and in
His resurrection to live His life in believers can man be forgiven and born
again of the Spirit of God.
This wonderful salvation cannot be forced upon anyone but is God’s
gracious gift for all who will receive it through believing the gospel of
Jesus Christ. It is by faith that we are saved and created in Christ Jesus
“unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk
in them” (Ephesians 2:8–10). To believe the gospel and to receive Christ
requires the exercise of a free choice on man’s part, a choice that
Calvinism will not allow. As Oxford professor Andrew Fairbairn explained,
While Freedom reigned in Heaven, Necessity governed on earth; and men were
but pawns in the hands of the Almighty who moved them whithersoever He willed.
This was the principle common to theologies like those of Augustine and Calvin....
It made illusions of our most common experience.15

Practical Consequences of Denying Free Will

Sadly, many of those who deny that God allows any free choice to man
have been prone to act like the Deity they believed in by denying choice
to those who disagreed with them and attempting to coerce everyone
into conformity. In this they were following Calvin, who “demanded that
the state must consent to be the servant of the church.... Liberty of
conscience was not granted. Heretics and dissenters were executed or
banished, and the people were compelled by the arms of the magistracy
to perform what was considered their religious duties.”16
As we have already seen, setting up a state church in the early days of
the Reformation, Calvinists forced their views on others whenever
possible. One historian writes, “A majority of the framers of the new
creeds [in England and Scotland] believed in the divine right of
Presbyterianism. They considered it a duty of the state to enforce
uniformity, and were not prepared to make concessions of any
importance to the Independents [i.e., the “free churches” that rejected
the state church system]. In 1648, Parliament passed an act of extremely
intolerant character. Eight [theological] errors [were] made punishable
with death.”17
As we have also observed, the Westminster Assembly was called and
financed by Parliament and was controlled by Presbyterians; Baptists and
Independents were excluded as “mortal enemies of the State Church.”18
Tolerance for any religious belief other than Calvinism “was denounced
by leading members of the [Westminster] Assembly as the ‘last and
strongest hold of Satan....’” The Assembly was determined to enforce its
brand of religion “upon the entire population.”19
The Horrible Consequences of Calvinistic “Sovereignty”
This small segment of history provides hundreds of examples of men
who loved the Lord with their whole heart and were willing to suffer
imprisonment and death in His service, yet because of some of their
religious beliefs, they treated other Christians in a most un-Christian
manner. Samuel Rutherford was such a man. His letters from prison
contained such deep spiritual insights and were so moving that nearly 400
editions were eventually published. Robert Murray McCheyne said that
“the Letters of Samuel Rutherford were often in his hand.” Richard Baxter
held these letters in such regard that he said that, apart from the Bible,
“such a book as Mr. Rutherford’s Letters the world never saw the like.”
Spurgeon considered them “the nearest thing to inspiration which can be
found in all the writings of mere men.”20
Historians described Rutherford as a “gracious and godly man.” Yet,
because of his Calvinist beliefs, he “denied absolutely the moral principles
underlying religious toleration.”21 Sounding like the popes he despised,
he even went so far as to declare that “there is but one true Church and
all who are outside it are heretics who must be destroyed!”22
Never did Christ or His apostles or the early church attempt to force
anyone to believe the gospel. The tolerance the early church had for the
ungodly around them was not an acceptance of their errors. It was a
recognition that no one could be forced against his will into the kingdom
of God. They attempted to persuade the heathen to believe the gospel,
but never did they attempt to force them to do so (as Islam requires)—
nor did they believe in a God who could or would. The gospel is the good
news of God’s love in Christ and can only be received willingly from the
heart. Since Calvinism denies the necessity of choice, it was only natural
that its adherents would seek to force their views on all dissenters.
Roger Williams, one of the best-known advocates of religious freedom
in his day, published a protest titled The Bloudy Tenent [Bloody Tenet] of
Persecution for Cause and Conscience. He fled England for America, where
he was badly treated by the Puritans. In England, the Westminster
Assembly had his book publicly burned.23 In 1648, the Presbyterians
succeeded in enacting the “gag law...to punish the Baptists as
‘blasphemers and heretics’.... Under this infamous law four hundred
Baptists were thrown into prison.”24
 In fact, dissenters had been suffering persecution and imprisonment

for years—Protestants suffering at the hands of fellow Protestants for not

being Calvinists. Nearly thirty years before, the following entreaty, titled
“A most Humble Supplication of many of the King’s Majesty’s loyal
subjects...who are persecuted (only for differing in religion) contrary to
Divine and human testimonies,” had been smuggled out of a prison:
Our miseries are long and lingering imprisonments for many years in divers
counties of England, in which many have died and left behind them widows, and
many small children; taking away our goods...not for any disloyalty to your
Majesty, nor hurt to any mortal man...but only because we dare not assent unto,
and practise in the worship of God, such things as we have not faith in, because it
is sin against the Most High.25

Many Calvinists would deplore the persecution perpetrated by the

early proponents of this doctrine. They would not approve of that side of
the Westminster Assembly. Yet they praise its Calvinistic Confession,
seemingly blind to the connection between the two. And they zealously
promote Calvinism as “Reformation theology,” as though the Calvinists
had alone carried the Reformation on their shoulders. There were
hundreds of thousands of others who were just as sincere in their faith
(and we believe far more biblical) as were Calvin and Luther; and they
suffered for Christ at the hands not only of the Roman Catholics but of
Calvinists and Lutherans as well.
Love: The Missing Ingredient
God’s love for the lost and the love of Christians for the lost—two
major interrelated themes of Scripture—have no part in Calvinism. We
know many would take offense at that statement who, indeed, are
lovingly concerned for the lost. This is, however, in spite of and contrary
to their Calvinism and not because of it. Though a Presbyterian
theological professor and one-time Moderator of the General Assembly,
Herrick Johnson acknowledged:
Across the Westminster Confession could justly be written: “The Gospel for the
 elect only.” That Confession was written under the absolute dominion of one idea,
the doctrine of predestination. It does not contain one of the three truths: God’s
love for a lost world; Christ’s compassion for a lost world; and the gospel universal
for a lost world.26

In Calvin’s entire Institutes of the Christian Religion there is not one

mention of God’s love for the lost! Nor is that surprising in view of the
fact that Calvin’s God can only love the elect.27 Does that not bother
today’s evangelical leaders who praise Calvin as the great exegete and call
themselves Calvinists?
Furthermore, Calvin’s concept of love is defective. He says that God
“requires that the love which we bear to Him be diffused among all
mankind, so that our fundamental principle must ever be, Let a man be
what he may, he is still to be loved, because God is loved.”28 This is one of
several places where Calvin says the Christian is to love “all mankind.”
Should not God, then, who is love, love all men also? Calvin never says so,
but at least here he seems to imply an agreement with that principle—
though his idea of God’s love is strange indeed.
He tells us that God’s “boundless goodness is displayed” to everyone,
“but not so as to bring all to salvation.”29 How could a “goodness” that
stops short of what it could do be seriously described as “goodness,”
much less as “boundless”? This goodness (in spite of stopping short) is
said by Calvin to be “evidence of his [God’s] love.” Again we ask, how can
failing to do all the good that God is able to do be evidence of His love?
And evidence to whom? And how can it be said that God loves those
whom He predestined to eternal torment before they were born?
This warped view of God’s love is further revealed in Calvin’s
statement that this alleged display of God’s “goodness” is not for the
purpose of helping all mankind. Instead, God’s intention is to bring “a
heavier judgment...[upon] the reprobate for rejecting the evidence of his
[God’s ] love.”30 This argument leaves one stunned. Can a “goodness”
that doesn’t do all the good it could be evidence of God’s love? Would it
not, instead, be evidence of a lack of love? And for using the common
sense and conscience God has given us, are we to be condemned for
rejecting what Calvin mistakenly called the “evidence of God’s love”?
The Failure of Attempted “Explanations”
Follow Calvin’s reasoning. God loves and saves only the elect; He
neglects to save those whom He hasn’t elected to salvation. Incredibly,
through “shin[ing] the light of his word on the undeserving,” he reveals
His goodness and love by withholding it from them, the better to damn
them for “rejecting the evidence of his love.”
Such warped reasoning is an integral part of Calvinism that attempts to
show that God loves those whom He could have saved but instead
damns. Hear it from pastor and author John Piper, one of today’s most
respected Calvinist apologists:
We do not deny that all men are the intended beneficiaries of the cross in some
sense.... What we deny is that all men are intended as the beneficiaries of the
death of Christ in the same way. All of God’s mercy toward unbelievers—from the
rising sun (Matthew 5:45) to the worldwide preaching of the gospel (John 3:16)—is
made possible because of the cross.... Every time the gospel is preached to
unbelievers it is the mercy of God that gives this opportunity for salvation.31
(Emphasis in original)

Trying to reason with those who espouse such obviously contradictory

statements leaves one with a sense of complete frustration. Proclaiming
the gospel to those He has predestined to damnation is an act of God’s
mercy, by which He is giving “opportunity for salvation” to those who
can’t be saved?! And the gospel being preached to the doomed non-elect
stems from God’s “mercy toward unbelievers” flowing from the Cross?
Words such as love, grace, and mercy seem to have lost what was
once their meaning. It is impossible to reason with those for whom the
above seems reasonable. Are we talking about two different “Gods” and
two different “gospels”—one described in the Bible, the other invented
by Calvin and Augustine?
Differentiating Foreknowledge from Predestination
Calvinism’s view of predestination, which for Calvin was seemingly
empty of genuine love, is a large part of the problem. As we have seen,
Pink says, “God foreknows what will be because He has decreed what
shall be.”32 He was following Calvin, who said that “God foreknew what
the end of man was to be...because he had so ordained by his decree.”33
Central to that belief is the denial that God’s foreknowledge has anything
to do with knowing something in advance. Instead, foreknowledge is
defined as “foreordaining” and is equated with predestination.
Thus when Paul writes, “For whom he did foreknow, he also did
predestinate” (Romans 8:29), Calvin insisted that it must be read, “For
whom He predestinated He also did predestinate”—an obvious
redundancy. This will be discussed further when we come to
Predestination. It is mentioned here only to show why this view was
adopted by Calvin, a view that is followed loyally by his followers today.
To know something in advance is not the same as predetermining that
it will happen. Foreordination and foreknowledge are not the same, but
they can overlap. Whatever God has predestined, He obviously knows will
happen. His foreknowledge, however, is not limited to what He has
predestined. He does not need to predestine something in order to know
it will happen. Were that the case, as we have already observed, God
would not be omniscient.
An unbiblical view of predestination, as we shall see in more detail
later, is foundational to Calvinism. Arthur W. Pink claims that “God
decreed from all eternity that Judas should betray the Lord Jesus”
because through Zechariah “God declared that His Son should be sold for
‘thirty pieces of silver’ (Zechariah 11:12).... In prophecy God makes known
what will be, and in making known what will be, He is but revealing to us
what He has ordained shall be.” Pink goes on to argue that in spite of all
he did, being foreordained, Judas was nevertheless “a responsible agent
in fulfilling this decree of God.”34
Pink is best known for his strong views on God’s sovereignty, especially
through his book The Sovereignty of God. Vance points out that “Pink’s
Calvinism upset some Calvinists so bad[ly] that an attempt was made to
tone it down by The Banner of Truth Trust, by issuing, in 1961, a ‘British
Revised Edition’ of The Sovereignty of God in which three chapters and
the four appendices were expunged. For this they have been severely
criticized (and rightly so) by other Calvinists.”35
Philosophers and theologians have long speculated about how God
could know the future without causing the future. The consequences of
whether this is true are serious. We have already given two reasons why
God’s foreknowledge of what will happen need have no influence upon
what to man are future events. Even Calvin wrote, “I, for my part, am
willing to admit, that mere prescience lays no necessity on the creatures;
though some do not assent to this, but hold that it is itself the cause of
things.”36 Calvin’s reason, however, was that he held foreknowledge and
predestination to be one and the same: “but since he foresees the things
which are to happen, simply because he has decreed that they are so to
happen, it is vain to debate about prescience, while it is clear that all
events take place by his sovereign appointment.”37
Of course, “all events” must include every evil thought, word, and
deed. So here again, as elsewhere, Calvin clearly declares that God is the
cause of evil. Yet in the face of undeniable evidence, so-called “moderate
Calvinists” today deny that Calvinism teaches that God is the cause, and
thus the author, of evil. There is obviously a vast difference between
saying that God fully foresees everything that will happen and allows
much that is not His perfect will (which Calvin would not permit)—and in
saying that God predetermines everything that occurs and thus is the
cause of it (which Calvin insisted is the case). The latter view, which is
Calvinism’s foundational doctrine, makes man a mere automaton and
reveals God as the effective cause behind all evil, wickedness, and sin.
Thus a terrible blemish is imposed upon God’s holy character!
Like Calvin, Luther asserts that “God foreknows and wills all things.”
And he argues that if this is not true, then “how can you believe, trust and
rely on His promises?”38 The answer is, “Quite easily. We rely upon God’s
promises because He is God, knows all, and cannot lie.”
Luther is simply mistaken here, as he was on much else. Scripture
nowhere indicates that God must will all things in order to know them—
or in order to make and keep promises. What God promises to do, He will
do, regardless of the will or actions of man or nature, yet without
violating human will. That He is able to protect us and bring us to heaven
does not require that He must will every event that swirls about us—
much less that He must be the direct cause of every sin we commit or of
which we may become the victims.
Foreknowledge as Proof
More than simply claiming that God knows the future in advance,
Scripture proves this fact by revealing His infinite foreknowledge in the
hundreds of supernatural prophecies recorded therein. God foretells the
future through His prophets for a number of reasons, the greatest being
to prove that He is the one true God, as opposed to false gods, and to
prove beyond question that, in contrast to all other sacred books of world
religions, the Bible is His only and infallible written Word to mankind.
Thus God declares:

• Behold, the former things [which I foretold] are come to pass,

and new things do I declare: before they spring forth I tell you
of them. (Isaiah 42:9)

• I am God, and there is none like me, declaring the end from
 the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not
yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my
pleasure.... (Isaiah 46:9–10)

• I have even from the beginning declared it to thee; before it

came to pass I shewed it thee: lest thou shouldest say, Mine
idol hath done them, and my graven image, and my molten
image, hath commanded them. (Isaiah 48:5)
For at least two reasons, one cannot deny God’s complete
foreknowledge of the future. First of all, one would be denying God as He
necessarily is and as the Bible presents Him. Second, one would be
denying the very foundation of Christianity. Old Testament prophecies
comprise the major evidence God offers to man’s faith that Jesus of
Nazareth is the Christ, the Messiah of Israel. Without Him there is no
Christianity. So complete is this proof—solely on the basis of numerous
clear prophecies—that no one who makes a careful investigation can
honestly deny that the Lord Jesus Christ is the prophesied Messiah, the
Savior of the world.
The Apostle Paul firmly links the gospel of our salvation in Christ with
God’s foreknowledge expressed through His prophets: “...the gospel of
God (which he had promised afore by his prophets in the holy scriptures),
concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord...” (Romans 1:1–3).
Paul validates the gospel of salvation with the phrase, “according to
the scriptures,” meaning, of course, Old Testament prophecies:
Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you,
which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand... How that Christ died for our
sins according to the scriptures; and that he was buried, and that he rose again the
third day according to the scriptures.... (1 Corinthians 15:1–4; emphasis added)

Unless God’s prophets, through His foreknowledge, had told us how,

where, and when the Messiah would be born, and of His sinless life and
miracles, His betrayal for thirty pieces of silver by one of His disciples, His
rejection by His people the Jews, and many other specifics including His
cruel crucifixion and His glorious resurrection, we would have had no way
of identifying the Messiah when He came. Had the precise details not
been foretold by prophets who had already been proved to be inspired of
God, His betrayal, rejection, and crucifixion would have been enough to
convince us (as most Jews are convinced to this day) that He could not
have been the Messiah. The detailed identification leaves those who
reject Christ without excuse.
None of the world’s religions has such prophetic evidence for its
validity. There are no prophecies for Buddha, Confucius, Muhammad, or
any other leader of the world’s religions, whereas there are literally
hundreds of prophecies proving that Jesus Christ is the Messiah.
And here we confront another odd contradiction (beyond the scope of
this book, but which we have dealt with in other writings): that those of
the so-called Reformed position (in general) who put such emphasis upon
foreknowledge and predestination have, following Augustine’s lead yet
further, rejected the premillennial rapture of the church, the literal
thousand-year reign of Christ on David’s throne, and the literal fulfillment
of all of God’s promises to His chosen people, Israel, along with so much
else that is clearly prophesied for the future. Instead, like Augustine, to
their own harm they allegorize and spiritualize away this massive and vital
portion of God’s revealed foreknowledge—the very prophecies about
Israel that constitute the major proofs God has provided for His existence
and that the Bible is His Word.
What About Man’s Will?
As surely as we recognize that God is sovereign, we also recognize that
we have at least limited freedom to act within whatever bounds He may
have established for human actions. This recognition seems to be
continually validated by daily experience. What L. S. Keyser says could
hardly be disputed: “That man has a conscience which distinguishes
between right and wrong, and free will by which he is able to choose
between them, scarcely seems to require any argument.... His whole
experience tells him that he is a free moral being.”39 Alexander Maclaren,
one of England’s great Baptist preachers, put it in similar terms:
If I cannot trust my sense that I can do this or not do it, as I choose, there is
nothing that I can trust. Will is the power of determining which of two [or more]
roads I shall go.... God, the infinite Will, has given to men, whom He made in His
own image, this inexplicable and awful power of coinciding with or opposing His
purpose and His voice....40

It is not only Calvinists and Lutherans who deny free will, but for
thousands of years atheists and skeptics have also argued against this
belief. Even Arminius declared that “the Free Will of man towards the
True Good is...imprisoned, destroyed, and lost...it has no powers
whatsoever except such as are excited by Divine grace.”41 Of course,
neither can man think rationally or even breathe except by God’s grace—
but we do think and breathe, and we make choices by our own wills as
well as by God’s grace.
It hardly seems reasonable that our perception of making choices,
some of which we agonize over for days, could simply be an illusion and
that we are mere puppets of God’s foreordination. In his Confessions,
Augustine, supposed originator of “absolute sovereignty,” wrote:
I knew as well that I had a will as that I lived: when then I did will or nill anything, I
was most sure that no other than myself did will and nill: and I all but saw that
there was the cause of my sin.”42

The very fact that John tells us that the redeemed are born again “not
of the will of man” indicates that there must be much else for which the
will of man is to be credited and blamed. Peter’s statement that men
“willingly are ignorant” (2 Peter 3:5) of God’s truth indicates that
depravity is not something beyond man’s control, but the product of his
willing choice. That God says to Israel, “If ye be willing and obedient...but
if ye refuse and rebel...” (Isaiah 1:19–20), indicates again that man can be
reasoned with and can choose by an act of his will either to obey or to
disobey God. There are numerous statements in Scripture indicating that
God has given man a free will to make moral and spiritual choices for
which he alone bears responsibility and is to be blamed.
While God works “all things after [according to] the counsel of His own
will” (Ephesians 1:11), this does not state that God causes everything that
happens in the universe. It is perfectly compatible with God’s sovereignty
for Him (by His own counsel) to allow man to disobey Him. Without free
will, man could not receive God’s love, love Him in return, and receive the
gift of salvation.
Confusion Where Clarity Is Needed
Although Calvinism rejects free will, its adherents can’t agree upon
what this means. Some allow man freedom in the sphere of earthly
matters and deny it only when it comes to believing in Christ. Palmer
defines “free will” as “the kind of freedom that no man has,” not only “to
believe on Christ or to reject Him,” but even “the ability or freedom to
choose either good or evil.”43 Spencer further explains, “Total Depravity
insists that man does not have a ‘free will’ in the sense that he is free to
trust Jesus Christ as his Lord and Saviour.”44 Vance counters that “No
philosopher who denies to man a free will does so on the basis of man’s
depravity.”45 Nor did (or could) Calvin produce any scripture to support
his undefined assertions that man can choose some good but not enough
good, or that he is therefore unable to believe in Christ to the saving of
his soul.
Even defining terms divides Calvinists. Charles Hodge insists that “the
[Calvinist] doctrine of man’s inability, therefore, does not assume that
man has ceased to be a free moral agent.”46 Pink, however, declares that
“‘free moral agency’ is an expression of human invention47 [which denies]
that he [man] is totally depraved...48 the sinner’s will is...free in only one
direction, namely in the direction of evil.”49 Spurgeon said, “Free will is
nonsense.”50 Pink quotes J. N. Darby in another non sequitur: “If Christ
came to save that which is lost, free will has no place.”51
On the other hand, equally strong Calvinists Talbot and Crampton
rightfully insist that to deny that man has “free moral agency would be to
allege that he could never make a choice about anything at all. That
would be absurd.”52 Another Calvinist points out that “Calvin retains [to
man] so little of the will...that he cannot explain adequately the moral
character of human action [in] choices between good and evil.”53 Each of
us must come to his own conclusion based upon Scripture.
What Scripture Says About Free Will
The words “will,” “free-will,” “willing,” “freewill,” “free will,” along
with related words such as “voluntary,” “choose,” etc., are found nearly
4,000 times in Scripture. The requirement of willing obedience from the
heart is a theme that runs all through the Bible: “If ye be willing and
obedient…” (Isaiah 1:19), “If any man will do his [God’s] will…” (John
7:17), “If thou believest with all thine heart” (Acts 8:37), etc.
God wants our hearts, and the very concept of “heart” used
throughout Scripture is meaningless without free will. That “the king’s
heart is in the hand of the Lord, as the rivers of water: he turneth it
whithersoever he will” (Proverbs 21:1) does not say that the king has no
choice as Calvinism insists. At the least, this is Solomon’s declaration of
submission as Israel’s King to God; and at the most, it says that God can
turn any king’s heart when He so desires. But it does not declare that
everything any king thinks, speaks, and does is according to God’s will and
by His pre-ordination. That proposition, again, would make God the
author of evil.
The phrase, “freewill offering” is found nine times (Leviticus 22:21, 23;
Numbers 15:3; Deuteronomy 16:10; 23:23; Ezra 1:4; 3:5; 7:16; 8:28), and
“freewill offerings” is found seven times (Leviticus 22:18, 38; Numbers
29:39; Deuteronomy 12:6, 17; 2 Chronicles 31:14, Psalm 119:108). Those
numbers, however, do not tell the full story. There were countless
freewill offerings as the following indicates: “And Kore the son of Imnah
the Levite…was over the freewill offerings of God, to distribute the
oblations of the LORD, and the most holy things (2 Chronicles 31:14). The
phrase “willingly offered” is found five times, such as “the people willingly
offered themselves” (Judges 5:2). Both phrases are even used together:
“willingly offered a freewill offering unto the LORD (Ezra 3:5). Could the
fact that God gave man free will—and a major reason why—be stated
more clearly?
Do Outside Influences Destroy Free Will?
In order to support the doctrine of Total Depravity, the Calvinist must
show that man’s will is totally enslaved by sin. The argument has been
used that no choice could be made without some influence. Of course,
whatever choice one makes is affected to some extent by multiple
factors: health or mental mood, the weather, financial pressures,
temptations, lust, timing, opportunity, and so forth. And many if not most
of these almost numberless influences would seem to be beyond the
control of the chooser. How then can the will ever be free?
In pressing this point, Talbot and Crampton write, “If this Arminian
concept of free will is taken to its logical conclusion, then it would be
sinful to preach the gospel to fallen man. Why? Because it would be an
attempt to cause him to turn to Christ, which would be a violation of his
free will.”54 In other words, it would be wrong to attempt to influence
man to believe the gospel, because his choice would not have been made
freely.
Then Paul was wrong. He said, “we persuade men...” (2 Corinthians
5:11). What were Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and the prophets trying to do
but to persuade Israel to turn from her evil back to God in full
repentance?
Echoing this same argument, Pink imagines he delivers a death blow to
free will with this broadside: “There is something which influences the
choice; something which determines the decision.”55 Not so. Influences
influence; they don’t determine.
Nor is free will an “Arminian concept.” For thousands of years, many
non-Christian philosophers have marshaled excellent arguments in favor
of man’s free will. Further, the very fact that various influences are
brought to bear while man arrives at any choice is in itself evidence that
man has a free will. If man had no will, there would be nothing for these
“influences” to influence. Influences don’t make decisions. The will takes
into consideration all factors, and no matter how compelling any
influences (i.e., facts, reasons, circumstances, emergencies,
contingencies, etc.) may have been, the will still makes its own choice—
often irrationally.
That it may have been influenced to some extent in no way proves that
the will did not take all factors into consideration and make its own
decision. No matter how it reached a resolution, only the will could have
decided. Although the Calvinist looks to Augustine for so much, and avidly
quotes him for support, here again Augustine is ignored, for he argued
persuasively on this very point:
…we do many things which, if we were not willing, we should certainly not do. This
is primarily true of the act of willing itself—for if we will, it is; if we will not, it is not
—for we should not will if we were unwilling.56

Influences can be powerful. Many of today’s preachers deliberately

employ psychological and salesmanship techniques, entrapping
multitudes in false professions of faith. God does not use psychological
techniques but truth to convince and persuade. This is the purpose of
prophecy. Paul “confounded the Jews...proving that this is very Christ”
(Acts 9:22). Apollos did the same, “publickly, shewing by the scriptures
that Jesus was Christ” (Acts 18:28). We should do the same today.
There is obviously a godly persuasion that does not employ deceptive
techniques. Moreover, as we have already seen, if Calvinism were true,
Paul’s use of persuasion would be misguided for other reasons: the elect
would need no persuasion and the non-elect, being totally depraved and
predestined to eternal damnation, could not be persuaded.
Foreknowledge and Man’s Will
Given the above, a central issue has engaged philosophers, skeptics,
and theologians in debate for thousands of years: How can God’s
foreknowledge and man’s free will both be true? Inasmuch as God knows
what everyone will ever think or do, isn’t everything therefore
predetermined? And wouldn’t that fact rule out any possibility that man
could make a free choice concerning anything at all?
We have already seen why God’s foreknowledge has no causative
effect upon man’s free choice. God, being timeless, sees from outside—as
though they had already happened—what to us are future events. Thus
His foreknowledge has no effect on man’s will. There is no reason why in
His omniscience God cannot know what man will freely choose to do
before he chooses to do it—and have that knowledge without causing the
event to occur.
There is yet another question that troubles many: If man is free to
choose between options, would that not in itself deny both God’s
sovereignty and His foreknowledge? Luther claimed that this question
was the very heart of the Reformation and of the gospel itself. In fact,
Luther dogmatically insisted that it was impossible for God to foreknow
the future and for man at the same time to be a free agent to act as he
wills.
 Believing firmly in God’s foreknowledge, Luther wrote an entire book
titled The Bondage of the Will, to prove that the very idea of man’s free
will is a fallacy and an illusion. Several reasons have already been given as
to why Luther was wrong on this point, and that issue will be dealt with
further in the next chapter.
Though Calvin took so much from Augustine, like Luther he also
rejected the Augustinian belief that God could foreknow the future, while
at the same time man could have a free will. According to Calvin,
foreknowledge leaves no room whatsoever for free will, because
foreknowledge is the same as predestination:
If God merely foresaw human events, and did not also arrange and dispose of
them at his pleasure, there might be room for agitating the question [of free
will]...but since he foresees the things which are to happen, simply because he has
decreed them, they are so to happen, it is vain to debate about prescience....

If this frigid fiction [of free will] is received, where will be the omnipotence of God,
by which, according to his secret counsel on which everything depends, he rules
over all?57

Calvin repeatedly uses such unbiblical and utterly fallacious reasoning.

The Calvinist assumes a contradiction between sovereignty and free will
that doesn’t exist. The fact that God is able to allow man freedom of
choice, while still effecting His purposes unhindered, is all the more
glorifying to His sovereign wisdom, power, and foreknowledge.
Augustine on Free Will
In taking so much else from him, the Calvinist overlooks the fact that
Augustine clearly affirmed the free will of man.58 Moreover, Augustine
argued that there is no incompatibility between God’s absolute
sovereignty and man’s free will; and that to deny that fact, as did Luther
and Calvin, would be “impious”! Augustine writes persuasively:
…we assert both that God knows all things before they come to pass and that we
do by our free will whatsoever we know and feel to be done by us only because we
 will it....

He Who foreknew all the causes of things would certainly among those causes not
have been ignorant of our wills.... Wherefore our wills also have just so much
power as God willed and foreknew that they should have.59

Therefore we are by no means compelled, either, retaining the prescience of God

to take away the freedom of the will, or, retaining the freedom of the will, to deny
that He is prescient of future things, which is impious. But we…faithfully and
sincerely confess both.60

Augustine holds to freedom of the human will even into the eternal
state: “Neither are we to suppose that, because sin shall have no power
to delight them, free will must be withdrawn. It will, on the contrary, be
all the more truly free, because set free from delight in sinning to take
unfailing delight in not sinning.”61
When it came to free will, Calvin ignored Augustine, as did Luther—
and to maintain their theories, ignored many scriptures.
Nowhere is the failure to use sound reason in exegeting Scripture
more apparent than in Luther’s debate with Erasmus over free will. This
will be considered next.

1. Augustine, The City of God, trans. Marcus Dobs. In Great Books of the Western World, ed.
Robert Maynard Hutchins and Mortimer J. Adler (Encyclopaedia Brittanica, Inc., 1952),
V.9.
2. Jacobus Arminius, The Works of James Arminius, trans. James and William Nichols (Grand
Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1986), 2:120.
3. David S. West, The Baptist Examiner, March 18, 1989, 5.
4. John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, trans. Henry Beveridge (Grand Rapids,
MI: Wm. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1998 ed.), III: xxiii, 6.
5. Grover E. Gunn, The Doctrine of Grace (Memphis, TN: Footstool Publications, 1987), 13.
6. Michael J. Kane, Ph. D., “Letters,” Christianity Today, July 9, 2001, 9.
 7. David N. Steele and Curtis C. Thomas, The Five Points of Calvinism (Phillipsburg, NJ:
Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1963), 25.
8. Loraine Boettner, The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian
and Reformed Publishing Co., 1932), 32.
9. Calvin, Institutes, III: xxiii, 8.
10. Ibid., 7.
11. David O. Wilmouth, The Baptist Examiner, September 16, 1989, 5.
12. Calvin, Institutes, II: ii, 12–13.
13. Ibid., I: xviii, 1.
14. Ibid., III: xxiii, 7.
15. Andrew M. Fairbairn, The Philosophy of the Christian Religion (New York: The
MacMillan Co., 1923), 179.
16. John Horsch, History of Christianity (Scottsdale, PA: John Horsch, 1903), 270.
17. George Park Fisher, History of the Christian Church (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons,
1902), 406.
18. A. C. Underwood, A History of the English Baptists (The Baptist Union of Great Britain
and Ireland, 1970), 72.
19. Albert H. Newman, A Manual of Church History (Philadelphia, PA: American Baptist
Publication Society, 1933), II: 286–87.
20. Letters of Samuel Rutherford (Carlisle, PA: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1996; 1st ed. 1664),
back cover.
21. David Gay, Battle for the Church, 1517–1644 (Lowestoft, UK: Brachus, 1997), 438.
22. Underwood, English Baptists, 72.
23. C. Sylvester Horne, A Popular History of the Free Churches (Cambridge, UK: James
Clarke and Co., 1903), 124–27.
24. John T. Christian, A History of the Baptists (Sunday School Board of the Southern Baptist
Convention, 1922), I: 296–97.
25. Gay, Battle, 367.
26. Quoted in Augustus H. Strong, Systematic Theology (Valley Forge, PA: Judson Press,
1907), 779.
27. Calvin, Institutes, II: xvi, 3–4; II: xvii, 2–5.
28. Ibid., II: viii, 55.
29. Ibid., III: xxiv, 2.
30. Ibid.
31. John Piper and Pastoral Staff, “TULIP: What We Believe about the Five Points of
Calvinism: Position Paper of the Pastoral Staff” (Minneapolis, MN: Desiring God Ministries,
1997), 14.
32. Arthur W. Pink, The Doctrine of Election and Justification (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book
House, 1974), 172.
33. Calvin, Institutes, III: xxiii, 7.
34. Pink, Election, 155.
35. Marc D. Carpenter, Pt. 1 of “The Banner of Truth Versus Calvinism,” The Trinity Review,
May 1997, 1–4; cited in Vance, Other Side, 24.
36. Calvin, Institutes, III: xxiii, 6.
37. Ibid.
38. Martin Luther, The Bondage of the Will, trans. J. I. Packer and O. R. Johnston (Grand
Rapids, MI: Fleming H. Revell, 1957, 11th prtg. 1999), 83–84.
39. Leander S. Keyser, Election and Conversion (Burlington, IA: Literary Board, 1914), 96.
40. Alexander Maclaren, Expositions of Holy Scripture (London: Hodder and Stoughton, n. d.),
II: 333–34.
41. Jacobus Arminius, The Works of James Arminius, trans. James and Williams Nichols
(Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1986), 2:192.
42. Augustine, The Confessions, VII:5; in Great Books of the Western World, ed. Robert
Maynard Hutchins and Mortimer J. Adler, trans. Edward Bouverie Pusey (Encyclopaedia
Britannica, Inc., 1952), vol. 18.
43. Edwin H. Palmer, the five points of calvinism (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, enlarged
ed., 20th prtg. 1980), 36.
44. Duane Edward Spencer, TULIP: The Five Points of Calvinism in the Light of Scripture
(Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1979), 27.
45. Laurence M. Vance, The Other Side of Calvinism (Pensacola, FL: Vance Publications, rev.
ed. 1999), 201.
46. Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.,
1986), 2:260.
47. Arthur W. Pink, The Sovereignty of God (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 2nd prtg.
1986), 143.
48. Ibid., 138.
49. Ibid., 135.
50. Charles H. Spurgeon, Free Will—A Slave (McDonough, GA: Free Grace Publications,
1977), 3.
51. Pink, Sovereignty, 138.
52. Kenneth G. Talbot and W. Gary Crampton, Calvinism, Hyper-Calvinism and Arminianism
(Edmonton, AB: Still Waters Revival Books, 1990), 18.
53. Dewey J. Hoitenga, John Calvin and the Will: A Critique and Corrective (Grand Rapids,
MI: Baker Books, 1997), 70.
54. Talbot and Crampton, Calvinism, 21.
55. Cited in Vance, Other Side, 202.
56. Augustine, City of God, V.10.
57. Calvin, Institutes, III: xxiii, 6–7.
58. Augustine, Confessions, VII: iii, 5; and City of God, V.9–10.
59. Augustine, City of God, V.9.
60. Ibid., 10.
61. Ibid., XXII.30.
13—Erasmus and Luther in Debate
NEARLY ANY IN-DEPTH discussion with Calvinists eventually touches on
the issue of free will. And, nearly always, reference will be made to
Martin Luther’s Bondage of the Will. John Armstrong declares, “This is
what the Reformation is ultimately all about...The Bondage of the Will…
Luther said this is the important book because it...takes us back where
the real battle is.”1
Calvinists are not alone in their high regard for this lengthy treatise.
Many evangelicals, even without having read Bondage, hold it and Luther
in high regard simply because of the key role he played in the
Reformation. Yes, the entire Western world owes Martin Luther a debt of
gratitude for his stalwart stand against the tyranny of Roman Catholicism,
which ruled the world without challenge at that time. That does not
mean, however, that we ought to accept everything that came from his
pen without comparing it carefully to God’s Word.
Appalled by the licentiousness he had seen in the Vatican and among
the clergy in his visit to Rome, and by the sale of indulgences as tickets to
heaven (financing the ongoing construction and remodeling of St. Peter’s
Basilica), on October 31, 1517, Luther nailed his Disputation on the power
and efficacy of Indulgences (known as The Ninety-five Theses2) to the
door of the Wittenberg Castle Chapel. (John Calvin was then eight years
old.) Copies translated from the original Latin were widely distributed in
many languages, inciting heated debate all across Europe and arousing
hope among multitudes that the yoke of Rome could at last be loosened,
if not broken.
When one studies his 95 theses, however, it seems that Luther was not
entirely opposed to indulgences—only to their abuses. At this point he
was still a Roman Catholic in his heart, not desiring to leave that false and
corrupt Church, but rather to reform it. Instead of leaving, he would be
excommunicated.
He rejected the sale of indulgences for money and the false
proclamation that an indulgence of any kind could purchase salvation.
That he did, however, still believe in purgatory and accepted the value of
indulgences of a limited kind is quite clear from the following excerpts of
his 95 Theses:

Paragraphs 17-22: Furthermore, it does not seem proved, either

by reason or by Scripture, that souls in purgatory are outside
the state of merit…. Nor does it seem proved that souls in
purgatory, at least not all of them, are certain and assured of
their own salvation…. [I]ndulgence preachers are in error who
say that a man is absolved from every penalty and saved by
papal indulgences. As a matter of fact, the pope remits to
souls in purgatory no penalty which, according to canon law,
they should have paid in this life.

Paragraph 26: The pope does very well when he grants remission
to souls in purgatory, not by the power of the keys, which he
does not have, but by way of intercession for them.

Paragraph 29: Who knows whether all souls in purgatory wish to

be redeemed, since we have exceptions in St. Severinus and
St. Paschal, as related in a legend.

Paragraphs 38-41: Nevertheless, papal remission and blessing are

by no means to be disregarded…[but] must be preached with
caution, lest people erroneously think that they are
preferable to other good works of love.3
 It is quite clear that Luther, far from having renounced all of Rome’s
abominations, was only cautiously groping his way. The same would be
true of Calvin, who followed Luther’s footsteps some years later. Nor
were either of these Reformers ever delivered completely from Rome’s
errors. Tragically, much unbiblical baggage was thereby carried over from
Catholicism into Lutheranism and Calvinism, which remains to this day.
For example, millions of Lutherans and Calvinists around the world
remain under the deadly delusion that their baptism as infants made
them children of God fit for heaven. Their subsequent “confirmation”
only reinforces that deadly delusion.
A Few Relevant Facts
On October 12, 1518, Luther was summoned to Rome by order of
Pope Leo X. Arrested, he was held at Augsburg for trial before Cardinal
Cajetan. Refused an impartial tribunal, Luther fled for his life by night. On
January 3, 1521, a formal bull was issued by the Pope consigning Luther
to hell if he did not recant. The Emperor, pledging Luther’s safety,
summoned him to appear before the Imperial Diet in Worms on April 17,
1521. The Chancellor of Treves, orator of the Diet, demanded that he
retract his writings. Luther made this fearless and famous reply:
I cannot submit my faith either to the pope or to the councils, because it is clear as
day that they have frequently erred and contradicted each other. Unless therefore
I am convinced by the testimony of Scripture, or by the clearest reasoning...I
cannot and I will not retract.... Here I stand; I can do no other; may God help me.
Amen!4

Now an outlaw by papal edict, Luther fled again and was “kidnapped”
on his way back to Wittenberg by friends who took him for safekeeping to
Wartburg Castle. From there he disseminated more “heresy” in writings
that further shook all Europe. Rome’s determination to eliminate
Lutheran infidelity, as expressed by the Catholic authorities in March
1529 at the second Diet of Speyer, provoked a number of independent
princes to assert the right to live according to the Bible. They expressed
this firm resolve in the famous “Protest” of April 19, 1529, from which the
term “Protestant” was coined.
The Imperial Diet was convened in Augsburg for a thorough
examination of Protestant heresies. (Luther, having been
excommunicated in 1521, was a wanted man and dared not appear.) On
June 25, 1530, the Augsburg Confession (prepared by Melanchthon in
consultation with Luther) was read before about 200 dignitaries. It
delineated the clear differences between Lutheranism and Catholicism. In
particular, Article IV affirmed that men “are freely justified...their sins are
forgiven for Christ’s sake, who, by His death, has made satisfaction for our
sins.” Article XIII declared that “the Sacraments were ordained...to be
signs and testimonies” and condemned “those who teach that the
Sacraments justify by the outward act....” Article XV admonished “that
human traditions instituted to propitiate God, to merit grace, and to
make satisfaction for sins, are opposed to the Gospel and the doctrine of
faith. Wherefore vows and traditions concerning meats and days, etc.,
instituted to merit grace and to make satisfaction for sins, are useless and
contrary to the Gospel.”5
Luther still hoped that the Church could be reformed from within. Thus
the Augsburg Confession still viewed the Roman Catholic Church as the
true Church, and those signing it claimed to be true Catholics. Several
times that document refers to the steadfastness of the preparers’
traditional Catholic faith, particularly in their stand for the real presence
of Christ in the Eucharist (still accepted by Lutherans today) and for the
regenerative power of infant baptism in opposition to the “heretical
Anabaptists.”
Amazingly, that rather Catholic document has been the creed of most
Lutherans ever since, officially incorporating some of Rome’s errors into
modern-day Lutheranism. Thus, it is not surprising that in Augsburg on
October 31, 1999 (the date and place could hardly be a coincidence), in
what can only be construed as a slap at Martin Luther and the
Reformation—the Lutheran World Federation and representatives of the
Roman Catholic Church signed a Joint Declaration on Justification By
Faith, claiming agreement on the major point that had divided Lutherans
and Catholics for nearly 470 years.
Contradictions, Contradictions . . .
While this “agreement” was being reached to heal a theological schism
which had begun over indulgences, Pope John Paul II was defiantly
offering special indulgences for the year 2000: forgiveness of sins for
giving up cigarettes for a day, for making a pilgrimage to Rome, for
walking through one or more of four “Holy Doors” he would open, and so
forth. In spite of this new “agreement” between Lutherans and Catholics,
not one change could be noted in Roman Catholic beliefs and practices.
Everything that Martin Luther had so vigorously opposed was still fully in
place—including the wearing of scapulars promising that “Whosoever
dies wearing this scapular shall not suffer eternal fire” (John Paul II, whom
many evangelicals call a “fine Christian,” has worn one since childhood);
the wearing of supposedly miraculous medals for protection; the use of
“Holy Water;” prayers to saints, and especially to Mary, for help and even
salvation; pilgrimages to shrines (some pilgrims walking on bloodied
knees, the better to earn forgiveness of their sins); and too many other
unbiblical and superstitious practices to enumerate. Never had the
justification by faith, which Luther preached, been so thoroughly denied
—and that by Lutherans eager to heal the essential breach with Rome for
which thousands were burned at the stake.
The Pope even had the impertinence to remind the world that the
practice of Holy Pilgrimages for forgiveness of sins had been initiated in
1300 by Pope Boniface VIII, whom he lauded as “of blessed memory.”
Apparently John Paul II thought it had been forgotten that Boniface was a
murderous, anti-Christian, openly fornicating (a mother and her daughter
were both among his mistresses) pope who had been so evil (though
hardly more evil than many of both his predecessor and successor popes)
that Dante’s Inferno had him “buried” upside down in the deepest
crevasse of hell.
Slaying its 6,000 inhabitants, Boniface “of blessed memory” to John
Paul II, had utterly destroyed the beautiful Colonna city of Palestrina, Italy
(with all its art and historic structures dating back to Julius Caesar)
reducing it to a plowed field that he sowed with salt—giving indulgences
to those who did this wanton evil.
Boniface had issued Unam Sanctam, an “infallible” Papal Bull, in 1302
(still in full force and effect today) declaring that there was no salvation
outside the Roman Catholic Church and that for anyone to be saved it
was “altogether necessary...to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.”
Less than a year after the Joint Declaration, John Paul II, not to be
outdone by Boniface, confirmed again that there was no salvation outside
his Church. Lutherans were offended, as though this were something
new. Yet the Pope had made such pronouncements before, and the same
dogma has long been stated in Catholic catechisms and numerous other
official documents. Nor had the new “agreement” between Lutherans
and Catholics even addressed (much less corrected) numerous other
Romish heresies.
Credit Where Credit Is Due
Unquestionably, Martin Luther was a great reformer to whom we owe
(by God’s grace) much of the freedom of worship, conscience, and speech
that exists throughout the Western world today, in contrast, for example,
to the almost total absence of such blessings in the Muslim and
Communist worlds. However, much took place prior to Luther that made
possible what he accomplished. That fact must be taken into account in
evaluating his contributions.
Luther himself said, “We are not the first to declare the papacy to be
the kingdom of Antichrist, since for many years before us so many and so
great men...have undertaken to express the same thing so clearly....”6 For
example, in a full council at Rheims in the tenth century, the Bishop of
Orléans called the Pope the Antichrist. In the eleventh century, Rome was
denounced as “the See of Satan” by Berenger of Tours. The Waldensians
identified the Pope as Antichrist in an A.D. 1100 treatise titled “The Noble
Lesson.” In 1206 an Albigensian conference in Montréal, France, indicted
the Vatican as the woman “drunk with the blood of the martyrs,” which
she has continued to prove to this day in spite of shameful new
“agreements” such as Evangelicals and Catholics Together and the more
recent Joint Declaration.
A movement among priests and monks calling for a return to the Bible
began many centuries before Luther. The reformation movement within
the Roman Church can be traced as far back as Priscillian, Bishop of Avila.
Falsely accused of heresy, witchcraft, and immorality by a Synod in
Bordeaux, France, in A.D. 384 (seven of his writings proving these charges
false were recently discovered in Germany’s University of Wurzburg
library), Priscillian and six others were beheaded at Trier in 385. Millions
of true Christians were martyred at the hands of the Roman Catholic
Church in the succeeding centuries prior to the Reformation.
Jumping ahead to the late 1300s, John Wycliff, called the “morning
star of the Reformation,” championed the authority of the Scriptures,
translated and published them in English (while, almost as fast, Roman
Catholics burned them), and preached and wrote against the evils of the
popes and Catholic dogmas, especially transubstantiation. Influenced by
Wycliff, Jan Hus, a fervent Catholic priest and rector of Prague University,
was excommunicated in 1410. He was burned as a “heretic” in 1415—100
years before Luther and the Protestant Reformation—for calling a corrupt
church to holiness and the authority of God’s Word. In 1429, Pope Martin
V commanded the King of Poland to exterminate the Hussites.
 Many others who lived even closer to Luther’s time played an
important part in preparing Europe for the Reformation. One of these
was Erasmus of Rotterdam. Because of his role in provoking Luther to
write what some have called his masterpiece, The Bondage of the Will,
this fascinating man, called by some historians “the bridge to the
Reformation,” must occupy some of our attention. At the height of the
Reformation, it was popularly said in Paris that “Luther had only opened
the door, after Erasmus had picked the lock.”7
Erasmus of Rotterdam
Erasmus is one of the most interesting and enigmatic—and in many
ways tragic—figures in history. He was born out of wedlock, a fact
unknown to his father, Gerard, who, having fled in guilt from Holland to
Rome, was told that his lover, Margaret, had died. Consumed with grief
and remorse, Gerard entered the priesthood. Upon later returning to
Holland, he discovered to his great joy that Margaret was alive, as was
the son she had borne. Gerard would not, however, break his sacerdotal
vows, nor would Margaret marry any other. Together they devoted
themselves to their child, Erasmus, whom they put into school at the
early age of four.
Despite being orphaned in his teens and living for years in desperate
poverty, Erasmus pursued the study of Greek, Latin, and the classics and
became possibly the most eloquent scholar of his day. Ordained an
Augustinian priest at the age of 24, the year Columbus sailed to America,
his splendid intellect and unusual clarity of expression eventually made
Erasmus famous. He was courted by the powerful and rich, including
kings, princes, prelates, and even popes, who curried his favor. Henry VIII
invited Erasmus to England, where he lectured at Cambridge University
and was a friend of luminaries such as Archbishop Warham, John Colet,
and Sir Thomas More. All the while, Erasmus made no secret of his dislike
of many of his Church’s practices.
 Both Erasmus’s rejection of Rome’s central doctrine of
transubstantiation and his sense of humor (and no less his ability to
remain in the good graces of important people in spite of offending them)
are illustrated by a famous incident. Sir Thomas had loaned Erasmus a
horse to carry him to the ship that would take him back across the
Channel to the continent. The ever irascible Erasmus took the horse with
him aboardship and, reaching shore, rode it all the way home. When
More complained, Erasmus wrote back (reflecting the many times More
had attempted to convince him of transubstantiation) a brief jingle as
follows:
You said of the bodily presence of Christ:
Believe that you have, and you have him.
Of the nag that I took my reply is the same:
Believe that you have, and you have him.8

Erasmus the renegade had already channeled his keen wit into the
most cutting satire, which he used to “unveil and combat the vices of the
[Roman Catholic] Church...[he] attacked the monks and the prevailing
abuses [with] elegant and biting sarcasms against the theology and
devotion of his age...he immolated...those schoolmen and those ignorant
monks against whom he had declared war.”9 As one of his devices,
Erasmus cleverly used fiction as a weapon. In The Praise of Folly, written
largely at More’s home, he personified the goddess Folly as Moria, to
whom he gave such lines as
Do we not see every country claiming its peculiar saint? Each trouble has its saint,
and every saint his candle. This cures the toothache; that assists women in
childbed, a third restores what a thief has stolen…. Especially [virtuous is] the
virgin-mother of God, in whom the people place more confidence than in her
Son....10

Moria attacks the bishops “who run more after gold than after souls.”
Even the highest officials in Rome cannot escape. She asks, “Can there be
any greater enemies to the Church than these unholy pontiffs,
who...allow Jesus Christ to be forgotten; who bind him by their mercenary
regulations; who falsify his doctrine by forced interpretations; and crucify
him a second time by their scandalous lives?”11
The Forerunner of the Reformation
The Praise of Folly appeared in 27 editions and in every European
language during the lifetime of Erasmus, and “contributed more than any
other [writing] to confirm the anti-sacerdotal tendency of the age.” He
urged men to get back to the “Christianity of the Bible” and pointed out
that the Vulgate “swarmed with errors.” One year before Luther nailed
his 95 theses to the Wittenberg Chapel Door, Erasmus published his own
critical edition of the New Testament in Greek, which contributed
immensely to Luther’s later success by opening a clearer picture of God’s
truth to many serious students of Scripture.
Erasmus raised his voice “against that mass of church regulations
about dress, fasting, feast-days, vows, marriage and confessions which
oppressed the people and enriched the priests.” Eloquently he pressed
his attack, of which the following is representative:
In the churches they scarcely ever think of the gospel. The greater part of their
sermons must be drawn up to please the commissaries of indulgences. The most
holy doctrine of Christ must be suppressed or perverted to their profit. There is no
longer any hope of cure, unless Christ himself should turn the hearts of rulers and
of pontiffs, and excite them to seek for real piety.12

From today’s perspective, it is almost impossible to appreciate the

courage it took for Erasmus and a few others of influence to make such
public declarations. There are so many unsung heroes of the Reformation,
it is a pity that we cannot give them all due credit. Perhaps the meekest
and least appreciated was Oecolampadius, who had declared himself in
favor of Luther at Augsburg in late 1518. Later, when Oecolampadius took
refuge in Basel, crowds filled St. Martin’s Church whenever he took the
pulpit. Erasmus fled to Basel also and the two fugitives became friends.
Fearing that Erasmus’s friendship with Oecolampadius would soften the
latter’s stand against Rome, Luther wrote to warn him with these guarded
words: “I much fear that Erasmus, like Moses, will die in the country of
Moab, and never lead us into the land of promise.”13
In spite of their serious differences, however, “the friends of Luther,
and even the reformer himself had long hoped to see Erasmus unite with
them against Rome.”14 Unfortunately, in his heart, Erasmus (like some of
the equally tragic Jewish religious leaders in Christ’s day and some
evangelical leaders in our own) was willing to displease God in order to
gain praise from men. In the growing controversy, he attempted to
remain in the good graces of the Church hierarchy while “endeavouring to
obtain concessions from [Rome] that would unite the extreme parties.
The vacillations and inconsistency of Erasmus disgusted Luther. ‘You
desire to walk upon eggs without crushing them,’”15 complained Rome’s
fearless and uncompromising enemy.
Finally, the Open Antagonism
As the breach grew between him and Luther, Erasmus “was applied to
from all quarters; the Pope, the emperor, kings, princes, scholars, and
even his most intimate friends, entreated him to write against the
reformer. ‘No work,’ wrote the Pope, ‘can be more acceptable to God,
and worthier of yourself and of your genius.’”16
In spite of his own opposition to Rome’s corruptions that he had so
often and eloquently expressed, he had remained in good standing within
the Church. She had the power to provide him with great honors.
Erasmus could not bring himself to make the sacrifice of coming out fully
on the side of what he felt was Luther’s extremism. Yet he preferred not
to oppose Luther. “It is a very easy thing to say, ‘Write against Luther,’
replied he to a Romish theologian; but it is a matter full of peril....”
This indecision on the part of Erasmus “drew on him the attacks of the
most violent men of both parties. Luther himself knew not how to
reconcile the respect he felt for Erasmus’s learning with the indignation
he felt at his timidity.”17 Finally, desiring to free himself from any
lingering hope of gaining Erasmus’s half-hearted help, Luther wrote to
Erasmus in April 1524. The letter revealed both his impatience and
continued respect for the man seventeen years his elder, and seemingly
offered an olive branch so uncharacteristic of Luther. In part he said:
You have not yet received from the Lord the courage necessary to walk with us
against the papists. We put up with your weakness.... But do not...pass over to our
camp.... Since you are wanting in courage, remain where you are. I could wish that
our people would allow your old age to fall asleep peacefully in the Lord. The
greatness of our cause has long since gone beyond your strength. But on the other
hand, my dear Erasmus, refrain from scattering over us with such profusion that
pungent salt which you know so well how to conceal under the flowers of rhetoric;
for it is more dangerous to be slightly wounded by Erasmus than to be ground to
powder by all the papists put together. Be satisfied to remain a spectator of our
tragedy; and publish no books against me; and for my part, I will write none
against you.18

Luther must have known the reaction that such patronizing words
would arouse from Erasmus. The master rhetorician was a proud man
who took Luther’s condescension as an insult to his genius and integrity.
Now the die was cast. D’Aubigné comments, “Thus did Luther, the man of
strife, ask for peace; it was Erasmus, the man of peace, who began the
conflict.... If he had not yet determined to write against Luther, he
probably did so then.... He had other motives besides.”
Henry VIII and other nobility “earnestly pressed him to declare himself
openly against the Reformation. Erasmus...suffered the promise to be
wrung from him.... He was fond of glory, and already men were accusing
him of fearing Luther, and of being too weak to answer him; he was
accustomed to the highest seat, and the little monk of Wittenberg had
dethroned the mighty philosopher of Rotterdam.... All Christendom that
adhered to the old worship implored him...a capacious genius and the
greatest reputation of the age were wanted to oppose the Reformation.
Erasmus answered the call.”19
Erasmus had once rejoiced in Luther’s fulminations against Rome.
While cautioning the reformer to be more moderate and prudent, he had
defended Luther with these words: “God has given men a physician who
cuts deep into the flesh, because the malady would otherwise be
incurable.” On another occasion he had told the Elector of Saxony, “I am
not at all surprised that it [Luther’s criticism] has made so much noise; for
he has committed two unpardonable crimes; he has attacked the pope’s
tiara and the monks’ bellies.”20
Erasmus’s greatest weakness was the love of praise from those in high
authority, and he cherished telling friends of the latest flatteries sent his
way. Coming out openly against Luther would bring more praise than
remaining on the sidelines. “‘The pope,’ wrote he with childish vanity to a
friend...when he declared himself the opponent of Luther, ‘has sent me a
diploma full of kindness and honourable testimonials. His secretary
declares that this is an unprecedented honour, and that the pope dictated
every word himself.’ ”21 In the final analysis, vanity had won out over
truth.
The epitaph that Scripture has written over the life of Erasmus applies
equally to the evangelical leaders and churches who in our day are
making similar compromises with Rome and even with Islam: “For they
loved the praise of men more than the praise of God” (John 12:43). May
God deliver us from such leadership and grant repentance and a return to
biblical truth.
A Hopeless Strategy
Erasmus could not in good conscience defend Rome’s heresies and
abuses. Neither could he call for the strong measures Luther was
pressing, though he had once commended them. What should he do;
what tack should he take? He chose to attack Luther, not on his
opposition to Rome, which he could not honestly do, but on what
Erasmus thought was an obscure point.
In the autumn of 1524, Erasmus published his now famous Dissertation
on the Freedom of the Will, known thereafter to Luther and his
supporters as the Diatribe. He wrote to Henry VIII, “Trust me, this is a
daring act. I expect to be stoned for it.”22 Yet what did that really matter,
when those with the most power and greatest rewards were fully on his
side? The works of Erasmus had long before been listed on Pope Paul IV’s
Index of Prohibited Books, along with those of Calvin, Luther, and Zwingli.
Now he received nothing but praise from every corner of the Church.
Luther’s first reaction was anger that Erasmus would consider
insignificant an issue of such great importance as whether man’s will was
free to act in response to the gospel. Nevertheless, at first he disdained to
reply to a polemic that he considered so weak as to be unworthy of the
battle. His silence brought exclamations of triumph from Rome’s clergy:
“Well, where is your Luther now...? Ah, ah! He has met with his match at
last! He has learnt now to remain in the background; he has found out
how to hold his tongue.”23
Luther’s Provoked Response
With uncharacteristic reluctance, Luther finally forced himself to
prepare an answer, which he began to work on toward the end of 1525
(ten years before Calvin would write his Institutes of the Christian
Religion). Melanchthon wrote to assure Erasmus that Luther’s reply
would be moderate, which Erasmus knew was an impossibility. Perhaps
God had to choose men with defiant and even proud personalities to
stand up to the pressure that Rome brought to bear upon those who
dared to oppose her vaunted authority, a pitiless authority that had
remained almost unchallenged for more than a thousand years.
The language in Calvin’s Institutes reveals a man the equal of Rome in
his utter contempt of and lack of patience or sympathy for those whose
opinions diverged from his. Luther’s writings reveal much the same, and
he was brutal in his sarcastic put-down of Erasmus. The following is just a
small sample of his ad hominem reply:
By so doing, you merely let us see that in your heart you cherish a Lucian, or some
other hog of Epicurus’ herd.... Surely at this point you are either playing tricks with
someone else’s words, or practising a literary effect!24 You ooze Lucian from every
pore; you swill Epicurius by the gallon.25

Here again, as usual, you muddle everything up...and so you fall once more to
insulting and dishonouring Scripture and God...let them blather who will.... The
truth is, you fetch from afar and rake together all these irrelevancies simply
because you are embarrassed.... Since you cannot overthrow...foreknowledge...by
any argument, you try meantime to tire out the reader with a flow of empty
verbiage....26

See, I pray you, what abundance of by-ways and bolt-holes a slippery mind will
seek out in its flight from truth! Yet it does not escape....27

I’ll be hanged if the Diatribe itself knows what it is talking about! Perhaps we have
here the rhetorical trick of obscuring your meaning when danger is at hand, lest
you be trapped in your words.28

Luther had not thought this subject through as thoroughly as he was

forced now to do. He was willing to concede that man could indeed
exercise his will in making choices with regard to earthly matters. But
when it came to the question of man exercising any freedom of will
toward his salvation, Luther laid the ground for what Calvin (who was
about fifteen years old at this time) would ten years later present in his
Institutes after his conversion to Luther’s Protestantism. In his much
admired The Bondage of the Will, Luther pompously chides and
browbeats Erasmus:
In this book of mine...I shall harry you and all the Sophists till you tell me exactly
what “free-will” can and does do; and I hope to harry you (Christ helping me) as to
make you repent of ever publishing your Diatribe.... God foreknows nothing
contingently [i.e., no events depend upon something other than His will]...he
foresees, purposes, and does all things according to His own immutable, eternal
 and infallible will. This bombshell knocks “free will” flat, and utterly shatters it....
You insist that we should learn the immutability of God’s will, while forbidding us
to know the immutability of His foreknowledge! Do you suppose that He does not
will what He foreknows, or that He does not foreknow what He wills? If he wills
what He foreknows, His will is eternal and changeless, because His nature is so.
From which it follows, by resistless logic, that all we do, however it may appear to
us to be done mutably and contingently, is in reality done necessarily and
immutably in respect to God’s will.... 29

Here, as often elsewhere in Bondage, Luther boasts of his conclusion

without giving any valid supporting arguments. He secures his thesis by
his own mere definition, not by logic or Scripture. His assertions above do
not follow. Nor does he provide sufficient biblical support in this entire
work to make his case for the will being in bondage. In bondage to what
or to whom? He often implies the answer but fails to develop it fully or to
face the consequences.
Luther is arguing that God’s sovereignty ipso facto eliminates any
possibility that man could exercise a free will: “This bombshell knocks
‘free will’ flat, and utterly shatters it....” That God foreknows the future,
Luther argues, means the future is already predetermined, and that in
itself proves that man could not act freely. Augustine considers the same
problem far more carefully than Luther and comes to the opposite
conclusion. We’ve already shown why Luther’s idea is false. That God
knows something will happen does not cause it to happen.
It is true that, because God knows what Mr. Jones will decide and do in
the future, the latter will surely do so (or God would be wrong, which is
impossible). But that does not mean Mr. Jones cannot exercise a genuine
choice in thought, word, and deed; God simply knows in advance what
Mr. Jones’s free choice will be.
Is the will in bondage because God is sovereign and He has already
determined all that will occur? Luther seems to argue as much. Ten years
later, Calvin would come to the same conclusion, no doubt influenced by
Luther, though he would word his thesis somewhat differently and avoid
giving Luther any credit. If God’s sovereignty and foreknowledge
eliminated man’s free will, however, we would face a far worse dilemma:
man’s will would be in bondage to God’s will, making God the effective
cause of every evil thought, word, and deed. The current dark state of our
world would be exactly as God wills, rendering meaningless what Christ
told us to pray: “Thy Kingdom come, Thy will be done, on earth as it is in
heaven.”
In vain, Luther tried to escape the obvious, uncomfortable quandary
that if man cannot do anything except as God wills it, then God is the
author of evil. That unhappy conclusion is forced upon us by an extreme
view of sovereignty, which we have already seen is contradicted both by
Scripture and reason. There is no way to assert that man can only do
what God wills without admitting that God is therefore the invisible Hand
effecting all the evil that man commits. That assertion is blasphemy—yet
it lies at the very foundation of Calvinism as well as Lutheranism.
Is the Will Really in Bondage?
The defense of Calvinism traps even the best minds into hopeless
contradictions. Spurgeon himself couldn’t seem to make up his mind. In
spite of referring to “the equally sure doctrine, that the will of man has its
proper position in the work of salvation and is not to be ignored,”
Spurgeon also claimed that the idea of free will “left the whole economy
of Grace and mercy to be the gathering together of fortuitous atoms
impelled by man’s own will!”30 That, obviously, is not true. “Fortuitous
atoms” have nothing to do with “Grace and mercy,” nor does anyone who
believes in man’s power to make moral choices imagine that he can
control atoms with his will! Spurgeon should have stayed with biblical
exegesis.
He went on to lament, “We cannot tell on that theory whether God
will be glorified or sin will triumph.” Hardly. That we finite beings
wouldn’t know how something would turn out means nothing. The
outcome always was known to God from eternity past.
Sadly, great preacher that he was, in that sermon Spurgeon erected
and destroyed one straw man after another: “It must either be as God
wills, or as man wills.... If not God, then you put man there, to say, ‘I will,’
or ‘I will not.’ If I will it, I will enter Heaven. If I will it, I will...conquer the
Holy Spirit, for I am stronger than God and stronger than Omnipotence. If
I will it, I will make the blood of Christ of no effect...it shall be my purpose
that shall make His purpose stand, or make it fall.”31
With all respect to Spurgeon, this is nonsense. Even the rankest
Arminian would never imagine he could “conquer the Holy Spirit” or that
he was “stronger than God” or that man’s will could ever “make the
blood of Christ of no effect” or force an entrance into heaven! God has
set the rules for entering heaven. Man either accepts or rejects the
salvation God offers in Christ—but he is certainly not in charge.
Like so many other Calvinists in their zeal to defend God’s sovereignty
to the exclusion of human will, Spurgeon stooped to twisting scripture to
his own ends. For example, he quotes Christ’s indictment of the rabbis,
“You will not come to Me that you might have life.” He then declares,
“Where is free will after such a text as that? When Christ affirms that they
will not, who dares say they will...? Man is so depraved, so set on
mischief, the way of salvation is so obnoxious to his pride, so hateful to
his lusts, that he cannot like it and will not like it, unless he who ordained
the plan shall change his nature and subdue his will.”32
Spurgeon misses the Lord’s point. Christ is making this statement
specifically to the rabbis, not to all men. Secondly, the statement itself
says that they have a will, that by their own will they are rejecting Him:
“You will not come to Me....” Nor does Christ say that they cannot will to
do otherwise. Indeed, Christ’s statement would be meaningless unless
they could of their own will repent and come to Him. Only two chapters
later Christ declares, “If any man will do His [God’s] will, he shall know of
the doctrine, whether it be of God...” (John 7:17). Spurgeon himself in this
same sermon quotes this scripture as proof that man’s will has a part to
play in man’s coming to Christ.33
Is the will really in bondage? If so, to what or to whom—and is it
possible to set the captive will free from its bondage? If so, how can this
be done? We must consider those questions carefully—and we will do so
in the context of a further examination of Luther’s treatise.

1. John Armstrong, “Reflections from Jonathan Edwards on the Current Debate over
Justification by Faith Alone” (quoted in speech delivered at Annapolis 2000: A Passion for
Truth conference). Transcript available from The Jonathan Edwards Institute, P. O. Box
2410, Princeton NJ 08542.
2. http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/wittenberg/wittenberg-luther.html.
3. Ibid.
4. J. H. Merle d’Aubigné, History of the Reformations of the Sixteenth Century (London: n. p.,
1846; rev. ed. by Hartland Institute, Rapidan VA, n. d.), 245.
5. Ibid.
6. Ewald Plass, What Luther Says (St. Louis, MO: Concordia Publishing House, 1987), 1:35.
7. S. Fontaine, Histoire Catholique de Notre Temps (Paris: Pordre de St. Francois, 1562); cited
in d’Aubigné, History, 411.
8. Cited in d’Aubigné, History, 414.
9. Ibid.
10. Ibid.
11. Ibid.
12. Ibid., 42.
13. Ibid., 412.
14. Ibid., 414.
15. Ibid., 413.
16. Ibid., 14.
17. Ibid., 414.
18. Ibid.
19. Ibid., 414–15.
20. Ibid., 101.
21. Ibid., 43.
22. Ibid., 415.
23. Ibid., 416.
24. Martin Luther, The Bondage of the Will, trans. J. I. Packer and O. R. Johnston (Grand
Rapids, MI: Fleming H. Revell, 1957, 11th prtg. 1999), 70.
25. Ibid., 44.
26. Ibid., 86–87.
27. Ibid., 223.
28. Ibid., 228.
29. Ibid., 80–81.
30. Charles Haddon Spurgeon, “God’s Will and Man’s Will,” No. 442 (Newington:
Metropolitan Tabernacle; sermon delivered Sunday morning, March 30, 1862).
31. Ibid.
32. Ibid.
33. Ibid.
14—The Bondage of the Will?
LUTHER WAS UNQUESTIONABLY the leading figure in the Reformation
at this time, and the one to whom Protestants today owe the largest
debt. Although many others before him had opposed Rome, Luther was
the first to publish and distribute his challenge throughout Europe. Rome
had always been able to silence her critics with bribery or death; now she
faced a man who could not be bought and whose telling arguments had
aroused so many powerful local rulers in his favor that her vengeful grasp
could not reach him.
The Pope had one last hope: that the arguments put forth by Erasmus
and widely published by Luther’s enemies would persuade the masses
who had defected to return to the shelter of the one true Church. After
all, although Erasmus had criticized the Church, he had not been
martyred, had not left her fold, and was still on the best of terms with the
Pope. And it was he who was pointing out Dr. Luther’s errors. That a
reformation was needed, even the Church was willing to concede, but it
was the kind Erasmus and others favored—a correction of acknowledged
abuses, not a trashing of the traditions of centuries to start all over again
from nothing!
The arguments Erasmus presented were powerfully persuasive to
those who wanted to remain within the ancient fold. He was writing from
a Roman Catholic perspective, defending Catholic dogma, a tactic
calculated to strengthen Catholics in their beliefs, but which would hardly
be effective for those who had already embraced Luther’s rebellion.
Perhaps all Erasmus intended to accomplish was to flatter those who
could reward him the most.
We do not defend Erasmus, for much that he says is even less biblical
than some of Luther’s irrationalities. Although he had rejected the
efficacy of sacraments and her other pagan practices in his past satires,
Erasmus is still bound to Rome’s heresy that grace aids man in achieving
salvation by works. He writes, “…it does not…follow that man cannot…
prepare himself by morally good works for God’s favour.”1
Sadly, Erasmus was wrong when it came to salvation, no matter how
insightful his other criticisms of Rome. It is because man has already
morally failed to keep God’s law (and cannot mend that breach by
keeping it thereafter, no matter how perfectly) that he needs grace—
God’s unmerited favor for which no preparation is required or effective.
An Awkward Duel
Luther lunges mercilessly to attack his foe at every turn. There is no
point in dueling with the Pope. Neither he nor his cardinals and bishops
will listen. At least in Erasmus, Luther has an antagonist who will listen
and respond, and he vents his pent-up anger against Rome upon this man
who dares to defend her blasphemous sacraments.
At times neither antagonist argues to the point. Though Luther is so
clearly his master when it comes to exegesis of Scripture, it is often
Erasmus who is the more reasonable of the two. The latter points out, for
example, what we are arguing for in these pages: “If it is not in the power
of every man to keep what is commanded, all the exhortations in the
Scriptures, and all the promises, threats, expostulations, reproofs,
adjurations, blessings, curses and hosts of precepts, are of necessity
useless.”2
Luther responds with much ridicule but little substance. He argues that
the Old Testament passages Erasmus cites “only demand duty” but say
nothing concerning free will.3 Of course, that was all Erasmus intended to
show, since the implication of free will necessarily follows. Nor can Luther
cite one verse in Scripture that refers to “the bondage of the will.”
 Luther then demands of Erasmus why, if man can will to keep the law,
he (Luther) must “labour so hard...? What need now of Christ? What need
of the Spirit?”4
Erasmus had not even implied that there was no need of Christ or of
the Holy Spirit. He simply suggested that it would be reasonable to
conclude from God’s many commands and appeals to reason and
obedience that man must be capable of a willing response. But Luther
doesn’t deal with that; he is simply bombastic in arguing beside the point,
even ridiculing Erasmus for correctly admitting that free will can only
operate by God’s grace.5
Luther pounces like a tiger on that admission, rather than agreeing
with Erasmus and reasonably admitting the obvious: the fact that free will
needs grace no more nullifies free will than breathing is nullified by the
fact that it, too, is dependent upon God’s grace. Surely man has both the
ability and responsibility to cooperate with God’s grace and power in
whatever he does!
Throughout Bondage, Luther is like a bully who will not listen to
reason. Yet Packer and other Calvinists praise the “dialectical strength of
Luther’s powerful Latin.”6 B. B. Warfield calls Bondage “a dialectic and
polemic masterpiece.”7 In fact, Bondage contains so many contradictions
and so much fallacious reasoning that one wonders how it obtained its
reputation as such a logically drawn treatise.
One wonders, also, how evangelicals in their praise of Luther
seemingly overlook the extent to which he was still deceived by his
Roman Catholic background. This was especially evident in his view of the
efficacy of the sacraments. In his Small Catechism, he declares that
through the sacraments, “God offers, gives, and seals unto us the
forgiveness of sins which Christ has earned for us” (emphasis in original).8
This Catechism is used in nearly all Lutheran churches today (including the
Missouri Synod) as their basic book of doctrine.
In answer to the question, “What does Baptism give or profit?” the
Catechism declares, “It works forgiveness of sins, delivers from death and
the devil, and gives eternal salvation to all who believe this, as the words
and promises of God declare.”9 As for the Lord’s Supper or Communion,
Luther states, “It is the true body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ under
the bread and wine, for us Christians to eat and to drink10.... In, with, and
under the bread Christ gives us His true body; in, with, and under the wine
He gives us His true blood11...in the Sacrament forgiveness of sins, life,
and salvation are given...” (emphasis in original).12
Thus Rome’s false gospel of sacramentalism survived the Reformation
and is still honored in many Lutheran and Calvinist churches. Protestants
who trust in their modified version of infant baptism and the Lord’s
Supper for their salvation are just as lost as Roman Catholics who trust in
Rome’s sacraments. Recognizing Luther’s mistaken view of salvation may
help some to realize that his view of free will and human responsibility
could be equally wrong.
To What Is the Will in Bondage?
That the will—contrary to what Luther argues in his greatest treatise—
is not bound is clear. We have already refuted the argument that,
because the will is always beset with influences, that proves it is not free.
Man, as Paul admits in his case (Romans 7:7-25), often fails to do what he
would like to do—but not always. Paul doesn’t say that he never can do
what he wills—much less that his will is in bondage.
Luther imagines he does away with freedom of human will by arguing,
“For if it is not we, but God alone, who works salvation in us, it follows
that, willy-nilly, nothing we do has any saving significance prior to His
working in us.”13 Of course salvation is not our doing; but that does not
prove that we cannot freely receive the salvation Christ wrought as a gift
of God’s love. Throughout his entire treatise, Luther confuses the ability
to will with the ability to perform, and mistakenly imagines he has
disproved the former by disproving the latter.
Erasmus argues that for God to command man to do what he cannot
do would be like asking a man whose arms are bound to use them. Luther
responds that the man is “commanded to stretch forth his hand...to
disprove his false assumption of freedom and power....”14 Luther wins
that small skirmish, but neither man even comes close to the Bible.
That God would not just command but earnestly plead, persuade, and
beseech man endlessly through His prophets, promising and giving
blessing for obedience and warning of and bringing destruction for
disobedience, cannot be explained away by Luther’s clever but trite
rejoinder. Furthermore, we have numerous examples throughout
Scripture of prophets and kings and ordinary persons, from Enoch to
Noah to Abraham to David and onward, who, though not perfect, were
indeed willingly obedient to God and pleased Him. What happened to
Luther’s “bondage of the will” in those cases?
The Book of Proverbs is one huge treatise refuting Luther’s thesis.
Solomon is appealing to his son to “know wisdom and instruction; to
perceive the words of understanding; to receive the instruction of
wisdom, justice, and judgment, and equity...” (Proverbs 1:2–3). He
declares that “A wise man will hear, and will increase learning” (verse 5),
and he admonishes his son, “if sinners entice thee, consent thou not”
(verse 10). He exhorts, “My son, despise not the chastening of the LORD;
neither be weary of his correction: for whom the LORD loveth he
correcteth; even as a father the son in whom he delighteth” (3:11–12).
Are these persuasive urgings not appeals to the will?
Everything Solomon writes is to persuade his son that wisdom is to be
desired in place of folly and that the reward for serving God and
righteousness far exceeds the reward for serving selfish lusts and desires.
One must willingly heed the voice of wisdom. That the Lord corrects as an
earthly father corrects is not, as Luther insists, simply to show that no
correction is possible, but because the wise son will heed instruction—
which is obviously only possible by an act of the will. Luther fails either to
prove the bondage of the will or to demonstrate what it is that has the
will bound.
The Will Must Be Willing
One searches Bondage in vain to find where it deals with the literally
hundreds of biblical passages, from Genesis 24:58 to 1 Samuel 1:11 to 2
Samuel 6:21–22 to Psalms 4:8; 5:2–3; 9:1–2; 18:1; 30:1; to John 7:17, etc.,
which clearly indicate that man can indeed will to do God’s will. The many
passages where men express their willingness to obey and please God,
and actually prove it in their performance, are conspicuous by their
absence. Nor does Luther acknowledge, much less deal with, the fact that
of the dozens of times the words “bondage” and “bound” occur in
Scripture, not once are they used in reference to the human will.
Luther’s argument that the will is bound admits the existence of the
will, but does not explain why, or how, or to what or whom the will is in
bondage. Nor does Luther, any better than Calvin, explain how the will is
supposedly unbound so that man may believe the gospel. He argues that
because, even in Christians, “human nature” lusts against the spirit, “how
could it endeavor after good in those who are not yet born again of the
Spirit...?”15 This is no proof of bondage of the will.
Even the drunkard at times determines with his will to be sober. The
will is not in bondage. Man’s bodily desires at times overcome his will. But
even many non-Christians have willed to be free of addiction to alcohol or
tobacco and have been successful. Others tried with their will and failed
—but not because the will was bound by sin; they were.
The Westminster Confession says that the elect come to Christ “most
freely, being made willing by his [God’s] grace.” No one, however, is
made willing against his will, but must have been willing to be made
willing. God continually appeals to man’s will (“whosoever will,” etc).
There is no explaining away the fact that man has a will, as Augustine
and even Calvin admitted and everyone experiences countless times each
day. No one can persuade man to believe or do anything without his will
being involved—unless he has been drugged or hypnotized. At this point
we uncover the Achilles heel in Luther’s argument (and we will see the
same problem with Calvin when we come to Unconditional Election).
Once it is acknowledged that man has a will, there is no escape from it.
Whatever change takes place in a man must involve his will, and for that
to happen, the will must be willing. If the will was in bondage and has
been delivered, the will must have been willing to be delivered. We deal
with this further in the next chapter.
A Prejudicial Misuse of Scripture
Unfortunately, Luther often twists Scripture to prove his point. For
example, taking a statement by a psalmist concerning a temporary state
of mind from which he has repented—“I was as a beast before thee”
(Psalm 73:22)—he likens man’s will to a beast and launches into an
analogy that has nothing to do with what the psalmist says: “So man’s will
is like a beast standing between two riders. If God rides, it wills and goes
where God wills.... If Satan rides, it wills and goes where Satan wills. Nor
may it choose to which rider it will run, or which it will seek; but the riders
themselves fight to decide who shall have and hold it.”16
So Satan can defeat God? And man has no choice whose servant he
will be? Then why does God say, “Choose you this day whom ye will
serve” (Joshua 24:15)? And why does God not defeat Satan in every case?
Luther (like Calvin) forces us to conclude that those who will spend
eternity in the Lake of Fire will be there because God did not want them
in heaven—this falsity is a libel upon God’s character and love!
 Luther’s attempted analogy doesn’t follow from this or any other
scripture. The psalmist admits comparing the prosperity of the wicked to
his own troubles, and being envious of them. He realized that in so doing
he had become as foolish as a beast—not that his will was a beast. Yet
this same mistaken metaphor is used repeatedly by Calvinists. And both
Luther and Calvin ignored the psalmist’s repentance and the scores of
other verses throughout Scripture, which make it clear that man responds
to God in obedience by an act of his will.
Luther fails to distinguish between man’s freedom to will and his lack
of ability to carry out what he wills. Paul says, “To will is present with me;
but how to perform that which is good I find not” (Romans 7:18).
Obviously, man is free to believe the gospel and to receive Christ, which
requires no special ability on his part.
Forcing Scripture to Say What it Doesn’t
Luther quotes, “For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against
all ungodliness, and unrighteousness of men...” (Romans 1:18). He then
claims that Paul’s statement proves that man cannot will to do any
good.17 On the contrary, that God’s wrath is aroused against man’s
ungodliness shows that God is angry with them for failing to do what they
could have done had they been willing.
Luther goes on to quote Paul’s quotation of Psalm 14:4: “There is none
that doeth good, no, not one” (Romans 3:10–12). Like Calvin ten years
later, he makes this an absolute statement about man’s necessity when,
in fact, it refers to his propensity.18 That it must be the latter is clear from
the abundance of scriptures telling us of good done even by the heathen
and the exhortations even to the ungodly to do good. Nowhere does the
Scripture tell us that man is in such total bondage to evil that he cannot
respond obediently to God. Otherwise he could not be held accountable.
We covered this earlier in regard to Total Depravity, but now offer several
more examples from Scripture.
 Abimelech, a pagan idol-worshiping king of the Philistines, could say to
Isaac, “we have done unto thee nothing but good” (Genesis 26:10–11,29).
Laban, another idol worshiper, in obedience to God, refrained from
harming Jacob (Genesis 31:25–29). The Psalms are filled with
exhortations to “do good” (Psalms 34:14; 37:3, etc.). Of a virtuous wife, it
is said that she will do her husband “good and not evil all the days of her
life” (Proverbs 31:12). Jesus counsels the Jews to “do good to them that
hate you” (Matthew 5:44). There are literally scores of other verses in the
Bible indicating that even the ungodly can do good at times.
Luther argues, “To say: man does not seek God, is the same as saying:
man cannot seek God....”19 He repeatedly makes such elementary
mistakes, frequently offending both Scripture and reason. To say that Mr.
Brown never goes into town is obviously not the same as saying that Mr.
Brown cannot go into town. It could be that for some valid or imagined
reason Mr. Brown doesn’t want to or may even be afraid to go into town.
Not only does God call upon men repeatedly throughout the Bible to
seek Him, as we have already seen—implying that man could and does
seek God—but many scriptures commend those who have sought and
found. For example, “every one that sought the LORD went out unto the
tabernacle” (Exodus 33:7). Asa said, “we have sought the LORD our God” (2
Chronicles 14:7). We are told that when Israel did “turn unto the LORD God
of Israel, and sought him, he was found of them” (15:4). Ezra told the
king, “The hand of our God is upon all them for good that seek him...”
(Ezra 8:22). Asaph says, “In the day of my trouble I sought the Lord”
(Psalm 77:2). Zephaniah refers to them “that have not sought the LORD,”
(Zephaniah 1:6), surely implying that there were some who did seek Him,
and that all could if they would.
We could offer many more references showing that men have sought
and found the Lord. Therefore we must conclude that Psalm 14, and
Paul’s quotation thereof in Romans 3, do not mean that no man ever has,
ever will, or ever could seek the Lord. Rather, the general attitude of
mankind is being described.
Luther goes on to argue that “the doctrine of salvation by faith in
Christ disproves ‘free-will.’”20 That is absurd. In fact, salvation by faith
requires a genuine choice by the will. The gospel promises salvation as a
gift to those who will receive it; and one must have the power of choice
or one cannot receive the gift. The gospel is an invitation to come to
Christ, to receive Him, to believe on Him, to accept His death in one’s
place in payment of the penalty for one’s sins. The gospel is an appeal to
man’s will: “Come unto me all...whosoever will, let him take the water of
life freely” (Matthew 11:28; Revelation 22:17).
Confusing the Issue
Many of the scriptures and arguments Luther marshals for support
throughout Bondage are irrelevant to the question of free will. Consider
his reasoning from Romans 3:
Here Paul utters very thunderbolts against “free-will.” First: “The righteousness of
God without the law,” he says, “is manifested.” He distinguishes the righteousness
of God from the righteousness of the law; because the righteousness of faith
comes by grace...without the works of the law (v. 28)....

From all this it is very plain that the endeavour and effort of “free-will” are simply
null; for if the righteousness of God exists without the law, and without the works
of the law, how shall it not much more exist without “free-will”? For the supreme
concern of “free-will” is to exercise itself in moral righteousness, the works of that
law by which its blindness and impotence are “assisted.” But this word “without”
does away with morally good works, and the moral righteousness, and
preparations for grace. Imagine any power you can think of as belonging to “free-
will,” and Paul will still stand firm and say: “the righteousness of God exists
without it...!”
And what will the guardians of “free-will” say to what follows: “being justified
freely by His grace”...? How will endeavour, and merit, accord with freely given
righteousness...? The Diatribe itself argued and expostulated throughout in this
strain: “If there is no freedom of will, what place is there for merit? If there is no
place for merit, what place is there for reward? To what will it be ascribed if man is
justified without merit?” Paul here gives the answer—there is no such thing as
 merit at all, but all that are justified are justified freely, and this is ascribed to
nothing but the grace of God.21

On the contrary, that the righteousness of God “exists without the law,
and without works” has nothing to do with whether man has a free will or
not. Of course, God’s righteousness is independent of man’s free will.
That God is righteous neither proves nor disproves that man has free will.
Luther’s “very thunderbolts against ‘free-will’” are irrelevant to the
subject.
Furthermore, that righteousness cannot come by works is also
irrelevant to free will. Those who believe in free will also affirm that man
is “justified freely by His grace.” But grace cannot be forced upon anyone
or it would not be grace. Thus, it takes the power of choice for man to
assent to God’s grace and to receive the gift of salvation God graciously
offers.
Erasmus is also wrong in asserting that human merit aids in
justification. Human effort has no part in justification, as many scriptures
declare—but that fact has no bearing on the question of free will. This
section is typical of the confused reasoning Luther engages in throughout
this entire book that Packer and others praise as Luther’s greatest
treatise.
More Irrelevancy
Luther presents some excellent biblical arguments against salvation by
works, but that has nothing to do with whether man has a free will. Nor is
there anything inherent in the gospel that requires that the will be in
bondage. No Christian who believes that man has the power of choice
sovereignly bestowed by God upon him as a moral agent imagines that
this power has been given to man so that he could become righteous
enough to merit salvation or even to contribute to his salvation in any
way. Furthermore, the very fact that Paul refers to the righteousness that
comes by the law indicates that man has some power to choose to keep
the law, and to actually do so in at least some respects. Nor could he
otherwise be held accountable.
Paul does not deny that man can do good works; he denies that good
works can justify a sinner. Luther is clearly confused. One breach of the
law dooms man forever. Keeping the law perfectly in the future, even if
possible, could not make up for having broken the law in the past.
Moreover, that Paul says, “by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be
justified in his sight” (Romans 3:20), indicates that it is possible for man to
keep some provisions of the law some of the time. Paul’s argument is not
that it is impossible to keep for one moment any provision of the law, but
that even to keep the law perfectly would not be enough. In his
determination to prove the alleged bondage of the will, Luther misses
Paul’s whole point.
J. I. Packer says, “The Bondage of the Will is the greatest piece of
theological writing that ever came from Luther’s pen. This was his
[Luther’s] own opinion.”22 Warfield called Bondage “the embodiment of
Luther’s reformation conceptions, the nearest thing to a systematic
statement of them that he ever made...in a true sense the manifesto of
the Reformation.”23 Packer described it as “a major treatment of what
Luther saw as the very heart of the gospel.”24 Such praise is
incomprehensible!
If Bondage presents “the very heart of the gospels,” one wonders who
could be saved, because it encompasses some 300 pages of obtuse
arguments, many of which the average person would find difficult to
follow. One wonders, too, how Paul’s simple “Believe on the Lord Jesus
Christ, and thou shalt be saved” (Acts 16:31) has become so complicated.
And how would proving that man cannot choose to believe (if that were
indeed the case) encourage him to believe the gospel?
In contrast to the confusing arguments of Luther and the contradictory
statements of Calvin, A. W. Tozer declared:
 God sovereignly decreed that man should be free to exercise moral choice, and
man from the beginning has fulfilled that decree by making his choice between
good and evil. When he chooses to do evil, he does not thereby countervail the
sovereign will of God but fulfills it, inasmuch as the eternal decree decided not
which choice the man should make but that he should be free to make it.... Man’s
will is free because God is sovereign. A God less than sovereign could not bestow
moral freedom upon His creatures. He would be afraid to do so....

God moves undisturbed and unhindered toward the fulfillment of those eternal
purposes which He purposed in Christ Jesus before the world began.... Since He is
omniscient, there can be no unforeseen circumstances, no accidents...[but] within
the broad field of God’s sovereign, permissive will the deadly conflict of good and
evil continues with increasing fury.

There is freedom to choose which side we shall be on but no freedom to negotiate

the results of the choice once it is made.... Our choice is our own, but the
consequences of the choice have already been determined by the sovereign will of
God, and from this there is no appeal.25

1. Martin Luther, The Bondage of the Will, trans. J. I. Packer and O. R. Johnston (Grand
Rapids, MI: Fleming H. Revell, 1957, 11th prtg. 1999), 246.
2. Luther, Bondage, 171; quoting Erasmus.
3. Ibid.
4. Ibid., 172.
5. Ibid., 173.
6. Ibid., “Translators’ Note,” 11.
7. Benjamin B. Warfield, “The Theology of the Reformation,” in Studies in Theology (n. p., n.
d.), 471; quoted in “Historical and Theological Introduction” to The Bondage of the Will by
Packer and Johnston, 40–41.
8. A Short Explanation of Dr. Martin Luther’s Small Catechism: A Handbook of Christian
Doctrine (St. Louis, MO: Concordia Publishing House, 1971 ed.), 169.
9. Ibid., 174.
10. Ibid., 194.
11. Ibid., 195.
12. Ibid., 200.
13. Luther, Bondage, 102.
14. Ibid., 161.
15. Ibid., 313.
16. Ibid., 103–104.
17. Ibid., 273–275.
18. Ibid., 279–280.
19. Ibid., 281.
20. Ibid., 288–95.
21. Ibid., 289, 292.
22. Packer, Luther, Bondage, 40.
23. Warfield, “Theology,” 471; cited in Luther, Bondage, 41.
24. Packer, Luther, Bondage, 41.
25. A. W. Tozer, The Knowledge of the Holy (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1961), 117-119.
15—Unconditional Election
UNCONDITIONAL ELECTION—another phrase that is not found in the
Bible—“necessarily follows from total depravity.”1 This doctrine is
declared to be the heart of Calvinism. Herman Hanko writes, “No man can
claim ever to be either Calvinistic or Reformed without a firm and abiding
commitment to this precious truth.”2 Sproul, though a staunch Calvinist,
fears that the term “can be misleading and grossly abused.”3
The Canons of Dort explained this tenet as “the unchangeable purpose
of God, whereby, before the foundation of the world, he hath out of mere
grace, according to the sovereign good pleasure of his own will, chosen,
from the whole human race...a certain number of persons to redemption
in Christ....”4 Unconditional Election is the outworking of Calvinism’s
extreme view of sovereignty, which allows man no freedom of choice or
action even to sin. That being the case, if anyone is to be saved, God must
choose for them. Out of Unconditional Election, then, comes
predestination to salvation.
Why so few were chosen by the God who “is love” (1 John 4:8), and
the rest damned is, as we have already seen, a major problem that Calvin
himself recognized. Yet throughout his Institutes he offered no
satisfactory explanation. “That is a question for which I have no answer,”
admitted one of the staunchest critics of an early draft of this book.
Unable to find any place for God’s love in the theory of predestination
arising out of unconditional election, Calvin struck back caustically at his
critics in his usual manner, while pleading Augustine’s authority:
I admit that profane men lay hold of the subject of predestination to carp, or cavil,
or snarl, or scoff. But if their petulance frightens us, it will be necessary to conceal
all the principal articles of faith, because they and their fellows leave scarcely one
of them unassailed with blasphemy....
 The truth of God is too powerful, both here and everywhere, to dread the slanders
of the ungodly, as Augustine powerfully maintains.... Augustine disguises not
that...he was often charged with preaching the doctrine of predestination too
freely, but, as it was easy for him to do, he abundantly refutes the charge....

The predestination by which God adopts some to the hope of life, and adjudges
others to eternal death...is greatly cavilled at, especially by those who make
prescience its cause.5

Calvin offers neither biblical nor rational proof for his (Augustine’s)
theory. In typical fashion, he mocks what he calls “the slanders of the
ungodly” as though anyone who disagrees with him and Augustine is
necessarily ungodly. Such would be his attitude toward many today who,
professing a more moderate position, call themselves four-point or three-
point Calvinists. As uncompromising as Calvin himself, Palmer declares,
The first word that Calvinism suggests to most people is predestination; and if they
have a modicum of theological knowledge, the other four points follow.... The Five
Points of Calvinism all tie together. He who accepts one of the points will accept
the other points. Unconditional election necessarily follows from total depravity.”6

Many others agree:

If any one of the five points of Calvinism is denied, the Reformed heritage is
completely lost.… The truth of unconditional election stands at the foundation of
them all [five points]. This truth is the touchstone of the Reformed faith. It is the
very heart and core of the gospel.7

If the gospel is the power of God unto salvation to everyone who

believes it (Romans 1:16), and if the five points of Calvinism comprise the
very heart of the gospel, non-Calvinists cannot be saved. While many
Calvinists would deny such a conclusion, it follows logically from the many
statements we have already quoted by its leaders that Calvinism is the
gospel and true Christianity.
Unconditional Election: The Heart of Calvinism
The term “unconditional election” was chosen by Calvinists because it
allegedly conveys the meaning that “salvation is of the Lord and not of
man.” Spurgeon declared, “All true theology is summed in these two
short sentences: Salvation is all of the grace of God. Damnation is all of
the will of man.”8 There is a confusion, however, between (1) salvation,
which could only be effected through the sacrifice of Christ for our sins,
and (2) our acceptance thereof, which the Bible clearly states is a
condition: “as many as received him...become the sons of God” (John
1:12). Calvinists insist, however, in misguided attempts to protect their
extreme view of God’s sovereignty, that salvation cannot be conditioned
upon any act or belief on man’s part. George L. Bryson rightly states:
Calvinistic Election says to the unregenerate elect, “Don’t worry, your Depravity is
no obstacle to salvation,” and to the unelect, “Too bad, you have not been
predestined for salvation but [to] damnation.”9

R. C. Sproul writes, “The term election refers specifically to one aspect

of divine predestination. God’s choosing of certain individuals to be
saved.”10 Sproul continues, “The Reformed view teaches that God
positively or actively intervenes in the lives of the elect to ensure their
salvation.”11
Man’s acceptance or rejection of Christ plays no part: “By making
election conditional upon something that man does, even if what he does
is simply to repent and believe the gospel, God’s grace is seriously
compromised.”12 How the acceptance of God’s grace by faith can
compromise that grace is not explained, nor could it be. Paul declares
that God’s grace is received by faith alone (Ephesians 2:8). But Calvinism
rejects faith as essential to regeneration and thus to salvation.
The Calvinist insists that God must “intervene” sovereignly to
“regenerate” the elect without their having any faith in Christ or
understanding of the gospel. Indeed, “faith” is declared to be a “work.”
“To reject [Calvinistic] election is to reject salvation by grace and promote
salvation by works.”13 Thus by the erroneous view that faith is a work, the
very faith God requires is denied as the means by which God’s grace is
received by man!
In the Bible, however, faith and works are contrasted as opposites. “By
grace are ye saved, through faith;...not of works” (Ephesians 2:8–9); “But
to him that worketh not, but believeth...” (Romans 4:5). To support
Calvinism, the Bible must be contradicted in many places.
Calvinism’s Unbiblical View of Sovereignty AGAIN
Unconditional Election is demanded by the distorted view of God’s
sovereignty, which we have earlier discussed and which undergirds all of
Calvinism: that every thought, word, and deed is decreed by God—
including all sin. We have already shown that this perspective is both
irrational and unbiblical, but to the Calvinist it is a major foundation of his
belief: “The all-out emphasis on the almighty sovereignty of Jehovah God
is the truth and beauty of Calvinism.”14 Another writer adds, “Only the
Calvinist...recognizes God’s absolute sovereignty.”15
On the contrary, all Christians believe that God is absolutely sovereign,
but many recognize that sovereignty is not incompatible with freedom of
choice. God is no less sovereign because Satan and mankind have
rebelled and disobey Him continually.
Palmer declares with no apparent sense of contradiction that
“God...has foreordained...even sin.”16 In fact, sin is rebellion against God,
so it could hardly be willed by Him. Nevertheless, like Palmer, Gordon H.
Clark insists that
...every event is foreordained because God is omniscient…. Of everything God says,
‘Thus it must be....’ Must not they who say that God does not foreordain evil acts
now hang their heads in shame?17

Clark, Palmer, Pink, et al., are simply echoing Calvin, who said that God
“foresees the things which are to happen, simply because he has decreed
that they are so to happen....” How, then, can Calvinists today deny that
Calvinism teaches that God causes sin? As we have noted, Calvin goes on
to reason that it is therefore “vain to debate about prescience, while it is
clear that all events take place by his [God’s] sovereign appointment.”18
Following their leader, many Calvinists argue, “If a single event can
happen outside of God’s sovereignty, then He is not totally sovereign, and
we cannot be assured that His plan for the ages will be accomplished.”19
This theory, as we have seen, cannot be found in Scripture, nor is it
reasonable. Deliverance from this false view comes by simply recognizing
that there is a vast difference between what God decrees and what He
allows, between what God desires and what His creatures do in
disobedience of His will and rejection of His love. John R. Cross, who
made the revealing New Tribes Mission video, Delivered from the Power
of Darkness, has said it well:
From the third chapter of Genesis on, the scriptures shout “free will.” The whole
volume talks about choices, and the associated consequences. God saw fit to write
an entire book on choices, the Book of Wisdom (Proverbs). Having a free will
makes sense of God’s free love....

Suppose you met someone who...showed real love for you—going out of his way
to do special things for you...telling you they loved you. Then you found out that
they had no choice—they were programmed to “be loving”...well, it would be a
terrible disappointment. It would all seem so artificial, so meaningless, so empty.
And it would be.

Man was given a choice.... Having this choice defined man as a human being: to
eat or not to eat, to obey or disobey, to love or not to love. Man was not a robot.
Man was able to love by his own free choice [without which love is not love].20

Does God Cause Man to Sin?

It is true that God, being omniscient, knows all before it happens, and
therefore nothing can happen that He doesn’t know. For the omniscient
God to know all, however, it is clearly not necessary that He must decree
and cause all. Yet Calvin, limiting foreknowledge, insisted that God knows
only what He has decreed; therefore, for God to know all, He must be the
cause of all, including all evil. The doctrine of Unconditional Election then
follows: that just as evil is God’s doing, so election, too, must be all of God
without even faith on man’s part. Pink readily confesses the logical
conclusion to which Calvinism’s view of sovereignty and omniscience
ultimately lead:
...to deny God’s foreknowledge is to deny His omniscience.... But we must go
further: not only...did His omniscient eye see Adam eating of the forbidden fruit,
but He decreed beforehand that he should do so. (Emphasis in original)21

On the contrary, we have already seen that God, being separate from
the time-space-matter universe He created, observes it from outside of
time; thus His foreknowledge of the future leaves man free to choose. For
God there is no time. Past, present, and future are meaningful only to
man as part of his temporary existence in this physical universe.
God’s knowledge of what to Him is one eternal present would have no
effect upon what to man is still future. Calvin himself accepted this view
without realizing its devastating impact upon his denial of man’s ability to
make genuine choices:
When we ascribe prescience to God, we mean…that to his knowledge there is no
past or future, but all things are present, and indeed so present, that…he truly sees
and contemplates them as actually under his immediate inspection.22

Are “Tempting” and “Testing” Meaningless Terms?

Calvinism reasons that God, having foreordained from eternity past
that Adam and Eve would eat of the Tree of Knowledge, forbids them to
eat of it so He can punish them for doing what He foreordained and
caused them to do! Then, by Unconditional Election, He saves a select
number of their descendants to show His grace. That incredible scenario
is contrary to the very character of a holy and just God who “cannot be
tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man” (James 1:13). Far from
causing sin, God doesn’t even tempt man to sin, as we have already seen.
 We have noted that the Hebrew word translated “tempt” is nacah. It
means to test or prove, not to entice to sin. When God asked Abraham to
sacrifice Isaac, He was not enticing Abraham to commit murder but was
testing Abraham’s faith and obedience. To suggest that Abraham’s every
thought, word, and deed had already been foreordained by God makes
any “test” of Abraham’s faith meaningless. The same would be true of the
hundreds of times God tested the faith and obedience of individuals and
nations in the Bible.
Peter declares that the testing “of your faith [is] much more precious
than of gold” (1 Peter 1:7). How can he speak of “your faith” if faith is all
of God? And how can there be any meaningful “test” if man has no will
and all has been predetermined by God from eternity past?
God gave Adam and Eve the easiest possible command. There must
have been hundreds if not thousands of trees in the Garden bearing
delicious fruit of many kinds. They could eat of any or all of them—except
one: “Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: but of the tree
of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day
that thou eatest thereof, thou shalt surely die” (Genesis 2:16–17). This
command was a necessary test of obedience and of love for their Creator.
God was testing, not tempting, His creatures. But this whole concept
of warning man not to tempt God, and God testing man’s obedience and
faith, which occupies so many pages of Scripture, is meaningless if all has
been eternally foreordained by God. This doctrine makes a mockery of all
of God’s pleadings through His prophets for man to repent, and renders
the gospel itself redundant. Why plead with or warn or preach to those
whose response has been foreordained from eternity past?
Incapable and Predestined, Yet Accountable?
According to the “T” in TULIP, man is unable to respond to God in any
way except rebellion. He is free to pursue sin and to reject the gospel, but
because he is totally incapable of seeking or pleasing God by the Calvinist
definition, he cannot believe the gospel or have any faith in God. He can
respond to God only in unbelief and disobedience. Palmer declares that
“the non-Christian is hostile to God...he is not even able to understand
the good.”23 White says he can understand but not embrace it.
Allegedly, by His eternal decree God has predestined man’s every
thought, word, and deed, including the most heinous atrocities
committed by the world’s worst criminals. Man’s rebellion is only the
acting out of what God has predetermined man will and must do—so
man isn’t a rebel but a puppet.
How can that which God foreordained and causes man to do be
condemned as sinful rebellion against God’s will? How can it be
disobedience to do what God has willed? How could God complain when
man does what He predestined him to do? And how could man then be
justly punished for doing what he has no capability of not doing?
Such doctrine defames the God of love and justice who reveals Himself
to mankind in the Scriptures. In defense of the character of the true God,
John Wesley argued reasonably and biblically:
He [God] will punish no man for doing anything he could not possibly avoid;
neither for omitting anything which he could not possibly do. Every punishment
supposes the offender might have avoided the offence for which he is punished.
Otherwise, to punish him would be palpably unjust, and inconsistent with the
character of God....24

Astonishingly, Calvinists see neither injustice nor contradiction in God

foreordaining man’s sin and then punishing him for what he could not
avoid doing. This extreme view of sovereignty and predestination is
applied to salvation by the doctrine of Unconditional Election. Although
the Bible declares clearly and repeatedly that faith is the condition for
salvation (“believe...and thou shalt be saved...he that believeth not shall
be damned,” etc.), Calvinism’s Unconditional Election will not even allow
faith unto salvation. God simply decides to save some, called “the elect,”
sovereignly regenerates them, and only thereafter gives them faith to
believe on Christ, and damns the rest by His eternal decree. And God
allegedly foreordains all this before He brings the doomed and damned
into existence.
Scripture and conscience, however, impose upon man the duty to
rescue everyone possible. But the Calvinist insists that it glorifies God for
Him to rescue only a limited “elect.” John MacArthur calls the elect
“those chosen by God for salvation....”25 That He chooses to damn the
rest is said to show how wonderful it was that He saved at least some,
thus causing the elect to be exceedingly grateful. The Calvinist attempts
to escape the question of why God who is love saves so few by saying that
the real wonder is that God would save any—which is no answer at all.
By this doctrine, if anyone is to be saved God must, through Irresistible
Grace (which we will come to later), sovereignly effect within the sinner a
saving response to the offer of salvation. Clark admitted, “The two theses
most unacceptable to the Arminians are that God is the cause of sin and
that God is the cause of salvation....”26 Referring to the pronouncement
of this doctrine at the Synod of Dort, England’s King James (who gave us
the King James Bible), though he was no Arminian and hardly a “saint,”
expressed his repugnance:
This doctrine is so horrible, that I am persuaded, if there were a council of unclean
spirits assembled in hell, and their prince the devil were to [ask] their opinion
about the most likely means of stirring up the hatred of men against God their
Maker; nothing could be invented by them that would be more efficacious for this
purpose, or that could put a greater affront upon God’s love for mankind than that
infamous decree of the late Synod....27

A Strained and Unwarranted Redefinition of Words

Who could argue with the king’s condemnation? Nevertheless, the
attempt is made to muster biblical support by redefining certain words
and phrases, such as “world,” “whosoever,” “any,” “all men,” and even
“sinners” to mean only the elect. For example, Paul’s statement that
“Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners” (1 Timothy 1:15) seems
on its face to mean that His desire was for all sinners to be saved. That
understanding would, of course, refute Calvinism. Therefore, the word
“sinners” is redefined to mean only “the elect among sinners.”
There is nothing anywhere in the Bible, however, to suggest that
“sinners” really means the elect. The words “sinner” and “sinners” are
found nearly seventy times in the Bible: “the men of Sodom were wicked
and sinners” (Genesis 13:13); “the wealth of the sinner is laid up for the
just” (Proverbs 13:22); “behold, the Son of man is betrayed into the hands
of sinners” (Mark 14:41); “for sinners also love those that love them”
(Luke 6:32); “we know that this man is a sinner” (John 9:24); “we know
that God heareth not sinners” (John 9:31); “the law is not made for a
righteous man, but for...the ungodly and for sinners” (1 Timothy 1:9);
“but this man [Christ]...is holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from
sinners” (Hebrews 7:24–26), etc. There is not one place in the Bible where
“sinners” could be construed to mean “the elect.”
Yet when the salvation of sinners, or God’s love for sinners, is spoken
of, then the Calvinist insists that “sinners” means the elect, such as in the
following statements: “I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to
repentance” (Matthew 11:19; Luke 7:34), “This man receiveth sinners”
(Luke 15:2); “while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us” (Romans 5:8),
and so forth. Such redefinitions are required all through Scripture in order
to support Calvinism.
Throughout the New Testament, the same Greek word is always used
for “sinners.” Thus there is no license whatsoever to give it a different
meaning in certain cases in order to rescue Calvinism. Clearly, Calvinism
would collapse if the Bible really meant that Christ came to save all
sinners without discrimination, instead of only some sinners, i.e., the elect
among them.
Who Are the Elect, and Why?
The Bible uses the term “elect” in a variety of ways: for Israel, Christ, a
lady, a church, and angels. Never, however, is this word used to indicate
that there is a select group who alone have been predestined to be saved.
Never. Ironside declared, “Nowhere in the Bible are people ever
predestinated to go to hell, and nowhere are people simply predestinated
to go to Heaven...predestination is always to some special place of
blessing.”28
Calvinism defines the elect as that select group whom, alone, God has
from eternity past appointed to salvation. All others are predestined by
God to eternal damnation. The gospel can be preached day and night to
the latter, yet to no avail, because they are totally incapable of believing
it. God allegedly has no desire whatsoever to open their blind eyes and
give them the faith to believe. He does that for the elect alone (through
Unconditional Election), though He could do so for all. Yet never is this
repugnant doctrine taught in Scripture!
“Moderate” Calvinists would claim that we have just described hyper-
Calvinism. Attempting to deny “reprobation” or “double-predestination”
(which Calvin clearly taught), the moderates would say that God merely
left the non-elect to the just consequences of their sin. Left to their doom
those He could have rescued, or predestined them to that fate—what is
the difference? The so-called “hyper-Calvinist” simply admits the truth
about Calvinism.
What “moderates” try to distance themselves from as “hyper” was
taught by Calvin and has been part of mainstream Calvinism from the
beginning. The Westminster Confession of Faith states, “By the decree of
God, for the manifestation of His own glory, some men and angels are
predestinated unto everlasting life, and others foreordained to
everlasting death.”29 Yet having taught this belief, Calvin admitted:
…many…deem it most incongruous that of the great body of mankind some should
 be predestinated to salvation and others to destruction.30

The decree, I admit, is dreadful; and yet it is impossible to deny that God foreknew
what the end of man was to be before he made him, and foreknew, because he
had so ordained by his decree.31

Calvin is forced to maintain what he admits is a “dreadful” decree.

Why? Not by Scripture but by his unbiblical insistence that God can only
foreknow what He decrees. From that error, it follows that since God
knows everything that will occur, He must have decreed everything that
would ever happen—from Adam’s fall to the final doom of billions. Thank
God that the Bible says the opposite: that “God so loved the world, that
he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should
not perish, but have eternal life” (John 3:16). Both “world” and
“whosoever” must be changed to “elect” for Calvinism to be sustained.
Perplexing Indeed!
Calvinism’s “elect” are unconditionally (i.e., without any faith,
understanding or choice on their part) elected to salvation simply
because, in the mystery of His sovereign will, God decided, for no reason
at all, to save them and only them. The Calvinist objects when we say,
“for no reason at all.” It is claimed that God needs no reason, that it
simply pleased Him so to do, or that the reason is hidden in the mystery
of His will: “We do not know what God bases His choice on....”32
Even God, however, must have a reason for saving some and damning
others. Otherwise He would be acting unreasonably, and thus contrary to
His Being. In fact, election/predestination is always said in the Bible to
result from God’s foreknowledge.33 Those whom He foreknew would
believe He predestined to special blessings, which He decided would
accompany salvation from sin’s penalty—“the things which God hath
prepared for them that love him” (1 Corinthians 2:9).
God continually explains why man is separated from Him and what the
solution is, and He offers to reason with man about this matter: “Come
now, and let us reason together” (Isaiah 1:18). He reasons with Israel,
sends His prophets to warn His chosen people, and explains repeatedly
why, though reluctantly, He punishes them: “because of the wickedness
of thy doings” (Deuteronomy 28:20); “they have forsaken the covenant of
the LORD” (Deuteronomy 29:25); “because they have forsaken my law”
(Jeremiah 9:13), etc. God explains that He gave His Son to die for the sins
of the world because of His great love for all mankind: “For God sent not
his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through
him might be saved” (John 3:17); “And we have seen and do testify that
the Father sent the Son to be the Saviour of the world” (1 John 4:14).
Yet God never declares in Scripture a reason for saving a select group
and damning all others. Surely such an important doctrine would be
clearly explained, in defense of God’s character, yet it isn’t even
mentioned. We can only conclude that Unconditional Election is but a
human invention.
Scripture and Conscience Are United Against It
In fact, man’s God-given conscience and Scripture cry out in protest
against this doctrine. God is entirely “without partiality” (James 3:17), is
“no respecter of persons” (Acts 10:34), and all men are equally worthy of
His condemnation and equally unworthy of His grace. Calvinists admit
that the “elect,” like all mankind by their view, were once totally
depraved, incurably set against God and incapable of believing the gospel,
with no more to commend them to God’s grace than the “non-elect.”
Then why did He select them to salvation and damn all the rest? No
reason can be found either in God or in man, or anywhere in Scripture.
There is no escaping the haunting question: Why did Calvin’s God
choose to save so few when He could have saved all? Without apology,
James White informs us, “Why is one man raised to eternal life and
another left to eternal destruction...? It is ‘according to the kind intention
of His will.’”34 So it is God’s kindness that causes Him to save so few and
to damn so many! We are aghast at such a concept, and we are offended
on behalf of our God.
Biblically, there is no question that God has the right to save whom He
will and no one could complain. We are all deserving of the eternal
punishment required by God’s holiness against sin. But we are repeatedly
told that God is love and that He is merciful to all, exactly what we would
expect of Him in view of His command to us to love our neighbors as
ourselves and to do good to all. We surely would not expect the “Father
of mercies, and the God of all comfort” (2 Corinthians 1:3) to withhold
mercy from any who so desperately need it—much less that He would
take pleasure in doing so. Calvin hides behind Augustine’s authority to
justify this contradiction, but the effort falls short. For example:
Now...he [God] arranges all things by his sovereign counsel, in such a way that
individuals are born, who are doomed from the womb to certain death, and are to
glorify him by their destruction.... If your mind is troubled, decline not to embrace
the counsel of Augustine....35

We admit that the guilt is common, but we say, that God in mercy succours some.
Let him (they say) succour all. We object, that it is right for him to show by
punishing that he is a just judge.... Here the words of Augustine most admirably
apply.... Since God inflicts due punishment on those whom he reprobates, and
bestows unmerited favour on those whom he calls, he is free from every
accusation....36

I will not hesitate...to confess with Augustine that the will of God is necessity...
[and] that the destruction consequent upon predestination is also most just.... The
first man fell because the Lord deemed it meet that he should…because he saw
that his own glory would thereby be displayed....37

What “Justice” Is This?

God does not resort to judgment in order to demonstrate that He is a
just judge. He is perfectly just, and His judgment falls upon those who
deserve it and who reject His pardon through Christ—not upon a vast
multitude whom He predestines to eternal torment because it pleases
and glorifies Him! That belief of Calvin and Augustine libels the God of the
Bible.
That God would impose “the necessity of sinning” upon man, then
condemn him for sinning, cannot be called “just” by any semantic
maneuver. Yet this is exactly what Calvin taught and defended:
The [predestined to damnation] reprobate would excuse their sins…because a
necessity of this nature is laid upon them by the ordination of God. We deny that
they can thus be validly excused...every evil which they bear is inflicted by the
most just judgment of God.38

The heartlessness that Calvin attributes to God is appalling. Surely, as

Wesley argues, to punish for failure to do what it is impossible to do, or
for having done what one could only do, is the opposite of justice. If that
were not bad enough, that God would predestine man to sin so that He
would have someone to judge is abhorrent even to the ungodly. It is
offensive to the conscience God has given all mankind. Calvin attributes
evil to God, then calls it just because “everything which he [God] wills
must be held to be righteous.”39
Scripture tells us the opposite—that God commands all men to repent,
pleads with mankind to do so, is ready to pardon and promises salvation
to all who believe on Christ. The following passages, in which God pleads
with mankind to accept the salvation He offers in Christ, are only a few
among many similar scriptures that refute Calvinism’s Unconditional
Election:
Let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts: and let him
return unto the LORD, and he will have mercy upon him; and to our God, for he will
abundantly pardon (Isaiah 55:7); Ye shall seek me and find me, when ye shall
search for me with all your heart” (Jeremiah 29:13); Therefore, whosoever heareth
these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which
built his house upon a rock (Matthew 7:24); Come unto me, all ye that labour and
are heavy laden, and I will give you rest (Matthew 11:28); If any man thirst, let him
 come unto me, and drink (John 7:37); And whosoever will, let him take the water
of life freely (Revelation 22:17).

Each of the above very clearly includes two facts that refute
Unconditional Election:

1) The command and invitation are given to all, not just to a

select group. The words “wicked” and “unrighteous” and
“whosoever” and “all” clearly mean what they say and
cannot be turned into “elect.”

2) There are conditions that must be met. There is both a

command and an invitation to meet certain requirements:
to “forsake” one’s sin, to seek God with the whole heart, to
“hear and do” what Christ commands, to “come” to Him,
and to “take and drink” the water of life that Christ gives.

Evading the Issues

In all of his talk about God’s sovereignty and justice, Calvin takes no
account of God’s other attributes such as His love and mercy. Not once in
the nearly 1,300 pages of his Institutes does Calvin expound upon God’s
love for mankind or attempt to explain how God, who is love, could take
pleasure in damning billions whom He could save if He so desired. How,
indeed! Here is the great question that the very conscience God has
implanted in all mankind finds so troubling—but Calvin never addresses
it!
Biblically, God’s sovereignty is exercised only in perfect unity with His
total character. He is not a despotic sovereign. His sovereignty is enforced
in harmony with His love, grace, mercy, kindness, justice and truth—but
Calvin has almost nothing to say about these attributes, because they
cannot be reconciled with his theory.
It is only reasonable to ask why God, who is love, lacks the love and
compassion to save all whom He could save, and instead predestines
billions to eternal torment. Calvin repeatedly hides his lack of an answer
behind the word “mystery.” But pleading “mystery” cannot cover up the
horror of this doctrine. Yet that is the best Calvin can do, along with
repeatedly appealing to Augustine’s authority. He argues:
Let us not be ashamed to be ignorant in a matter in which ignorance is learning.
Rather let us willingly abstain from the search after knowledge, to which it is both
foolish as well as perilous, and even fatal to aspire.40

How sinful it is to insist on knowing the causes of the divine will, since it is itself,
and justly ought to be, the cause of all that exists.... God, whose pleasure it is to
inflict punishment on fools and transgressors...no other cause can be
adduced...than the secret counsel of God.... Ignorance of things which we are not
able, or which it is not lawful to know, is learning, while the desire to know them is
a species of madness.41

Pleading “mystery” and exalting ignorance is contrary to God’s Word,

which tells us that we must “be ready always to give an answer to every
man that asketh you a reason...” (1 Peter 3:15). Yet Calvin said it was
wrong to seek a reason.
The only Greek word translated “mystery” is musterion. It is never used
as Calvin used it to denote a secret not to be revealed. Rather, it always
refers to knowledge that is being revealed. For example: “I would
not...that ye should be ignorant of this mystery...” (Romans 11:25); “I
shew you a mystery...” (1 Corinthians 15:51); “made known unto me the
mystery...” (Ephesians 3:3); “Even the mystery which hath been hid...but
now is made manifest...” (Colossians 1:26); “I will tell thee the mystery...”
(Revelation 17:7), etc. The word is never used as Calvin uses it in relation
to salvation, predestination, or sovereignty, and certainly not concerning
some being saved and others damned.
No Escape by Semantics
According to the doctrine of Unconditional Election, both the faith to
believe and the salvation the elect receive are imposed upon them by
God’s sovereignty, overriding entirely their alleged human incapacity to
choose and their depraved will’s rejection of the gospel. The Calvinist
objects to the phrase “imposed upon them” and insists that God simply
removed from the elect their natural resistance to the gospel.
Any removal, however, of the alleged natural rejection would have to
change a rebellious sinner’s desire. Palmer admits, “He even makes me,
who really did not love Jesus, want to love Him and believe in Him
(emphasis added).”42 On the contrary, no one can be made either to love
or to accept a gift, much less to change his mind without the willingness
to do so. That willingness must come from the heart; it can’t be created
out of thin air.
No one can be forced to change his mind. No matter how he attempts
to explain Unconditional Election, the Calvinist cannot escape a basic fact
recognized by all mankind: that in any meaningful change of attitude or
belief, the human will must consent for reasons that it accepts willingly.
But that commonsense fact undermines God’s sovereignty, according to
Calvinism. On the contrary, it is a fact, and it refutes Calvinism.
The Calvinist claims that, according to Ephesians 2:8–10, faith is
bestowed as a gift (we discuss that error in depth later). The Greek
construction, however, demands that salvation, not faith, is the gift of
God.
Moreover, even if faith were the gift, it would have to be received—an
act in itself requiring faith and the exercise of one’s will. Saving faith is an
absolutely essential element in any relationship and transaction between
man and God, as many scriptures declare unequivocally: “He that cometh
to God must believe that he is...” (Hebrews 11:6).
Jesus said, “According to your faith be it unto you” (Matthew 9:29).
We have already pointed this out, but it bears repeating. The expression
“your faith” is found twenty-four times: “your faith is spoken of...”
(Romans 1:8); “if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain... (1 Corinthians
15:17), etc. “Thy faith” is found eleven times: “thy faith hath made thee
whole...” (Mark 5:34; Luke 8:48); “the communication of thy faith...”
(Philemon 6), etc. “His faith” is found twice: (“his faith is counted for
righteousness” (Romans 4:5), etc., and “their faith” three times: “Jesus
saw their faith” (Mark 2:5), etc. These are odd expressions if no one can
have faith unless God sovereignly regenerates him—then gives him a
faith that is not his own but totally of God.
Such teaching is clearly not biblical. Scripture repeatedly depicts God
as appealing to man’s reason, conscience, and will in order to persuade
him to repent and believe. The entire history of God’s dealing with man—
past, present, and future, as revealed in Scripture—is a meaningless
charade if Unconditional Election is true. And so it is with all of TULIP.
In Summary
It is love’s essential ingredient—the power of choice—that Calvinism’s
misguided defense of a false view of God’s sovereignty will not allow. And
it is right here on Unconditional Election, the second of its five points,
that Calvinism stubs its toe again on a huge contradiction over which its
adherents cannot agree. Its perversion of sovereignty demands that
whether one goes to heaven or hell depends solely upon God’s will and
decree; a man’s receiving or rejecting Christ is not by his free choice but is
irresistibly imposed upon him by God. As a result, the atheist feels
justified in rejecting a God who, contrary to basic human compassion,
predestines multitudes to eternal torment whom He could just as well
have predestined to eternal joy in His presence.
Why wouldn’t the God who is love exercise the absolute control
Calvinism attributes to Him over every thought, word, and deed to
eliminate sin, disease, suffering, and death and to bring all mankind into
heaven? This contradiction of the basic standards that God has put in
every human conscience raises an obvious question—and it is a question
in response to which Calvinists themselves cannot agree upon an answer.
Some, like John Calvin, unashamedly say that God doesn’t want
everyone saved—indeed, that it is his “good pleasure” to damn so many.
Others, realizing the revulsion that idea creates in anyone with a normal
sense of mercy and kindness, call this “hyper-Calvinism” and attempt to
find other explanations for God’s alleged failure to irresistibly elect
everyone. The necessity to overcome non-Calvinists’ objections to God’s
apparent callousness (in predestining multitudes to eternal torment
before they were even born) has been the mother of invention to a
number of attempted rationalizations.
As we have seen, some try to escape the moral disaster by simply
saying that the answer is hidden in the secret of God’s will—an obvious
copout. Others, while admitting the monstrous contradiction, insist that
what to us seems abhorrent is not so to God—that we cannot impose our
standards upon Him. That argument, however, is demolished by the fact
that God has written His standards in every conscience and reasons with
mankind upon that very basis (Isaiah 1:10–20).
All through Scripture, God appeals to man’s conscience to do what he
knows is right and to refrain from evil. Christ’s teaching, “And as ye would
that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise” (Luke 6:31),
clearly expresses the common sympathy that every normal person,
though a sinner, realizes he ought to have for those in need. That this
compassion comes from God and reflects His own kind desire toward
mankind cannot be denied, and is acknowledged to be so by Spurgeon.
Calvinists cannot agree on how to handle Paul’s clear declaration that
God desires “all men to be saved” (1 Timothy 2:4). As we shall see later in
more detail, like James White, many Calvinists argue that Paul doesn’t
mean “all men” but “all classes of men.”43 Calvin himself adopted this
devious idea for escaping the truth concerning God’s love for all.44 Yet
Spurgeon rejected this ploy. Instead, he honestly declared (as we have
already noted):
As it is my wish that it should be so, as it is your wish that it might be so, so it is
God’s wish that all men should be saved; for assuredly, he is not less benevolent
than we are.45

This un-Calvinistic belief, however, got Spurgeon in trouble. Wasn’t he

contradicting the Limited Atonement he otherwise professed to accept?
How could God sincerely wish for the salvation of those for whom Christ
did not die and whom He had predestined to everlasting torment? And
here—like Sproul, Piper, MacArthur, and others—Spurgeon fell back upon
the idea that God apparently has two wills, “God’s will of decree (His
eternal purpose)…[and] God’s will of desire.”46
This sermon is apparently the origin of MacArthur’s assertion of the
same contradiction. How could God have two conflicting wills? Instead of
finding a biblical and rational solution to this unbiblical and irrational idea
(which must be maintained in order to defend Calvinism), Spurgeon
pleaded ignorance:
Then comes the question, “But if he wishes it to be so, why does he not make it
so…[God] has an infinite benevolence which, nevertheless, is not in all points
worked out by his infinite omnipotence; and if anybody asked me why it is not, I
cannot tell. I have never set out to be an explainer of all difficulties, and I have no
desire to do so.”47

In fact, Calvinism itself creates this “difficulty”! The dilemma dissolves

and the unanswerable question is answered by one simple admission:
God in His sovereignty has given man the genuine power of choice. Thus
God’s sincere and loving desire for all mankind to be saved is not
contradicted by His justice but is rejected by the free will of many. No one
is predestined either to eternal bliss in God’s presence or to eternal
torment in separation from Him. Eternal destiny depends upon one’s
acceptance or rejection of Christ through the gospel.
 Those who receive Christ have nothing to glory in but in Christ alone
who paid the penalty for their sins. And those who suffer the just penalty
for their sins have only themselves to blame for having willfully rejected
the salvation God graciously provided and freely offered as a gift of His
love.
Such is the clear teaching of Scripture from Genesis to Revelation. But
to face that fact, the Calvinist would have to abandon the dogmas to
which he has devoted his life and reputation. Many have done so. It is our
prayer that this book will help many more to be delivered from TULIP.

1. Edwin H. Palmer, the five points of calvinism (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, enlarged
ed., 20th prtg., 1999), 27.
2. Herman Hanko, Homer C. Hoeksema, and Gise J. Van Baren, The Five Points of Calvinism
(Grand Rapids, MI: Reformed Free Publishing Association, 1976), 28.
3. R. C. Sproul, Chosen by God (Carol Stream, IL: Tyndale House Publishers, Inc., 1986),
155.
4. Canons of Dort (Dordrecht, Holland, 1619), 1:7.
5. John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, trans. Henry Beveridge (Grand Rapids,
MI: Wm. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1998 ed.), III: xxi, 4,5.
6. Palmer, foreword to five points, 27.
7. Herman Hanko; cited in Laurence M. Vance, The Other Side of Calvinism (Pensacola, FL:
Vance Publications, rev. ed. 1999), 245.
8. Charles Haddon Spurgeon, Spurgeon at His Best, ed. Tom Carter (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker
Book House, 1988), 122.
9. George L. Bryson, The Five Points of Calvinism “Weighed and Found Wanting” (Costa
Mesa, CA: The Word For Today, 1996), 36.
10. R. C. Sproul, Grace Unknown (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1997), 141.
11. Sproul, Chosen, 142.
12. C. Samuel Storms, Chosen for Life (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1987), 55.
13. Carl Morton, in The Berea Baptist Banner, January 5, 1995, 19.
14. David J. Engelsma, Hyper-Calvinism and the Call of the Gospel (Grandville, MI: Reformed
Free Publishing Association, 1980), 133.
15. Leonard J. Coppes, Are Five Points Enough? The Ten Points of Calvinism (Denver CO:
self-published, 1980), 15.
16. Palmer, five points, 25.
17. Gordon H. Clark, Predestination (Phillipsburg, PA: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing
Co., 1987), 63–64; cited in Vance, Other Side, 265.
18. Calvin, Institutes, III: xxiii, 6.
19. Calvinist pastor in Arizona to Dave Hunt, August 11, 2000. On file.
20. John R. Cross, The Stranger on the Road to Emmaus (Olds, AB: Good Seed International,
1997), 56–57.
21. Arthur W. Pink, The Sovereignty of God (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 2nd prtg.
1986), 249.
22. Calvin, Institutes, III: xxi, 5.
23. Palmer, five points, 15.
24. In Vance, Other Side, 236.
25. John MacArthur, The MacArthur Study Bible (Nashville, TN: Word Publishing, 1997),
1939.
26. Clark, Predestination, 185.
27. King James I; in Jacobus Arminius, The Works of James Arminius, trans. James and
William Nichols (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1986), 1:213.
28. H. A. Ironside, In the Heavenlies, Addresses on Ephesians (Neptune, NJ: Loizeaux
Brothers, 1937), 34.
29. Westminster Confession of Faith (London: 1643), III:3.
30. Calvin, Institutes, III: xxi, 1.
31. Calvin, Institutes, III: xxiii, 7.
32. Palmer, five points, 26.
33. See, for example, Romans 8:29 and 1 Peter 1:2.
34. James R. White, The Potter’s Freedom (Amityville, NY: Calvary Press Publishing, 2000),
177.
35. Calvin, Institutes, III: xxiii, 5,6.
36. Ibid., 11.
37. Ibid., 8,9.
38. Ibid.
39. Ibid., 2.
40. Ibid., xxi, 2.
41. Ibid., xxiii, 4,8.
42. Palmer, five points, 21.
43. James R. White, The Potter’s Freedom (Amityville, NY: Calvary Press Publishing, 2000),
139–143.
44. John Calvin, Calvin’s New Testament Commentaries (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B.
Eerdman’s Publishing Co., 1994), 10:209.
45. C. H. Spurgeon, sermon preached January 16, 1880, “Salvation by Knowing the Truth,”
[www.apibs.org/chs/1516.htm].
46. Ibid.
47. Ibid.
16—Is Salvation Available to All?
GOD DETERMINED of His own will to provide salvation. He devised the
plan and set the rules to satisfy His love and justice. It is folly for anyone
to imagine that man can set the requirements for salvation and impose
them upon God. It is no less obvious that God, because He is God, has the
prerogative of offering salvation to whomever He will. Yet Calvinists claim
that their critics deny such “freedom” to God. We do not.
God declared, “[I] will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, and will
shew mercy on whom I will shew mercy” (Exodus 33:19). He does not say,
however, that He will be gracious and merciful to some and not to others
—but that grace and mercy are by His initiative. He is under no obligation
to be gracious and merciful to anyone.
Only by God’s grace and mercy can anyone be saved: “By grace are ye
saved.…According to his mercy he saved us” (Ephesians 2:8; Titus 3:5).
Since salvation is by grace, it cannot be earned, merited, or demanded on
any basis whatsoever.
Grace and mercy can be given to whomever God should decide.
However, far from indicating that His grace is limited because He has
decided to save only a select group, the Bible clearly states that “God so
loved the world” that He gave His Son to die “that the world through him
might be saved” (John 3:16–17). Christ the Lamb of God came to take
“away the sin of the world” (John 1:29), and He became the propitiation
“for the sins of the whole world” (1 John 2:2).
God repeatedly declares that He is gracious and merciful to all. And so
it is with God’s love, from which His grace and mercy flow—without
partiality it reaches out to all mankind.
 Furthermore, in contrast to the literally hundreds of places where
God’s love is clearly expressed for all of Israel (most of whom rejected
Him) and for the whole world (most of whom also reject Him), nowhere
does the Bible declare that God doesn’t love and desire the salvation of
all. No Scripture indicates that God’s love and salvation are limited to a
select number. If this were the case, surely it would be stated clearly—but
it is not. Instead, God’s grace and mercy are repeatedly offered to all
mankind.
The Calvinist therefore attempts to take the hundreds of declarations
of God’s love for all and “interpret” them to say the opposite. Thus, in
expressions of God’s desire for and offer of salvation to all, words such as
“world” or “any” or “whosoever” or “sinners” or “all men” are interpreted
to mean “the elect.”
Sovereignty and Salvation
God is not in any way obligated to provide salvation for anyone. Yet the
Bible repeatedly makes it clear that God’s gracious purpose is for all
mankind to be saved: “Who will have all men to be saved, and to come
unto the knowledge of the truth.… Christ Jesus...gave himself a ransom
for all...” (1 Timothy 2:4–6). “Whosoever believeth in him.... Whosoever
will, let him take of the water of life freely” (John 3:16; Revelation 22:17),
etc. Scripture could not declare more clearly that salvation is offered to
all as a free gift of God’s grace to be accepted or rejected.
Yet everyone is not saved. Why not, if the sovereign God truly wants
all to be saved? Could the God who “worketh all things after the counsel
of his own will” (Ephesians 1:11) merely express His will in an offer that
man could by his will accept or reject?
Why not? Surely a command is stronger than an offer, and the Ten
Commandments are not “Ten Suggestions.” Yet this universal declaration
of His desire for mankind, which God gave from Mount Sinai to Moses
and has written in every human conscience, is broken billions of times
every day by man’s rebellious self-will. God’s sovereignty is no more
undermined by some accepting the offer of salvation and others rejecting
it, than by man’s continual disobedience of the Ten Commandments.
The word “whosoever” is defined in Webster’s New Universal
Unabridged Dictionary as “whoever; whatever person: an emphatic
form.” There are no alternate meanings—it always means whoever or
whatever person. Yet Calvinism requires that in certain places
“whosoever” actually means “the elect alone.”
In truth, the correct meaning for “whosoever” completely contradicts
Calvinism. The word “whosoever” is found 183 times in 163 verses in the
Bible, beginning with “whosoever slayeth Cain” (Genesis 4:15) and ending
with “whosoever will, let him take of the water of life freely” (Revelation
22:17). “Whosoever” clearly means everyone without exception. It is
found in warnings (“whosoever eateth leavened bread”—Exodus 12:15)
and in promises of reward (“whosoever smiteth the Jebusites first shall be
chief”—1 Chronicles 11:6). Among the scores of other examples are
“whosoever heareth, his ears shall tingle” (Jeremiah 19:3) and
“whosoever shall call on the name of the LORD shall be delivered” (Joel
2:32). Not once in its 183 occurrences in the Bible could the word
“whosoever” mean anything except “whosoever”! But wherever salvation
is offered to whosoever will believe and receive Christ, the Calvinist
changes the same Hebrew or Greek word to mean the “elect.” He must in
order to hold onto Calvinism. But isn’t submission to God’s Word more
important than loyalty to a dogma?
Christ Defines “Whosoever”
The best-known Bible verse promises eternal life to “whosoever
believeth in him” (John 3:16). Christ’s last recorded words in Scripture
are, “And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst
come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely”
(Revelation 22:16–17). There is nothing in these passages or in any other
context to suggest that Christ ever offers salvation to anyone less than
“whosoever.”
Yet the doctrine of Unconditional Election declares that this offer is
effective for only a select group, who alone have been unconditionally
elected to salvation—a reinterpretation of God’s clearly declared will that
has no basis except the need to salvage Calvinism.
We have shown elsewhere that Christ left no question concerning the
meaning of “whosoever” in John 3:16. In verses 14-15, He likened His
being lifted up on the Cross for our sins to when the fiery serpents bit the
Israelites because of their rebellion, and all who looked in faith to the
uplifted brass serpent were healed. Numbers 21:8-9 is unequivocal:
“...everyone that is bitten, when he looketh upon it [the brazen serpent],
shall live...if a serpent had bitten any man, when he beheld the serpent of
brass, he lived.”
The healing from the poisonous snakebite was not for a select group
within Israel whom God had predestined to be healed, but for
“everyone…any man.” The only limitation was to look in faith to the
upraised serpent. Likewise, everyone who has been bitten by “that old
serpent, called the Devil, and Satan” (Revelation 12:9) is healed if they
will but look in faith to Christ lifted up on the Cross. No wonder Calvinist
apologists, such as James White, avoid the passages in the Old Testament
that point to the sacrifice of Christ for the sins of the world.
Scripture clearly declares that there is “no difference” between Jew
and Gentile, “all have sinned...all the world [is] guilty before God”—and
that God is the God “of the Gentiles” as well as of the Jews. Thus salvation
is for “all them that believe” (Romans 3:9-31).
If salvation is not genuinely available to all, why did Christ command
His disciples to go into all the world and preach the gospel to every
creature” (Mark 16:15)? Is that not giving a false impression, both to His
disciples and to all who would read their account of Christ’s teachings in
the four Gospels? Christ repeatedly offered salvation to all who would
believe and receive Him: “He that heareth my word, and believeth on him
that sent me, hath everlasting life” (John 5:24); “If any man thirst, let him
come unto me and drink” (7:37); “I am the door...by me if any man enter
in, he shall be saved” (John 10:7-9), and so forth.
How would His disciples, or the common people who heard Him who
had never heard of Augustine’s and Calvin’s theories, come to the
conclusion that salvation was only for a limited number who had been
unconditionally elected? Complicated reasoning and a system of “Five
Points” are required to arrive at that conclusion. And if that were the
case, would it not be misrepresentation of the worst sort to offer
salvation to whosoever will? If Calvinism were true, Christ could have
chosen words to convey that fact rather than seeming to offer salvation
to whosoever would believe on and receive Him.
The Calvinist, of course, explains that he preaches the gospel to all
because he doesn’t know who is among the elect. Could it really be God’s
will for the gospel to be preached to those for whom Christ did not die,
and for multitudes to be urged to believe from whom God withholds the
necessary faith? Isn’t this not only dishonest but cruel? Peter told the
Jews gathered at Pentecost, “for the promise is unto you and to your
children...” (Acts 2:39). Calvinism turns this promise into a lie, and the
preaching of the gospel becomes a cruel hoax to multitudes!
Illustrating a Point
The God of the Bible declares repeatedly throughout His Word that He
is not willing that anyone should perish but wills for “all men to be saved”
(1 Timothy 2:4). Continually, and in the most urgent and solemn language
possible, He calls upon all men to repent and to believe on His Son as the
Savior of all mankind. Christ holds out His nail-pierced hands and pleads,
“Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you
rest” (Matthew 11:28). This is a promise that all who labor and are heavy
laden with sin have every reason to believe is extended to them.
Believing the Bible, one must conclude that just as “all have sinned”
(Romans 3:23), so all are offered deliverance from sin and its penalty
through the gospel. Surely the “all” in “all we like sheep have gone
astray” must be the same as the “all” in “the Lord hath laid on him the
iniquity of us all” (Isaiah 53:6). Unquestionably, all Israel went astray.
Therefore, Christ suffered for the sins of all Israel. Since Israel is a picture
of the relationship God desires for all mankind, and since “all have sinned
and come short of the glory of God” (Romans 3:23), we may thus be
confident that God laid on Christ the sins of the whole world. As John the
Baptist declared, “Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of
the world” (John 1:29).
To claim that “all” and “world” mean only a select group called “the
elect” does violence to the plain meaning of language and impugns the
character of God. In our newsletter, I likened Calvinism to the following
scenario:
If I should hold a rope 30 feet above a man at the bottom of a well and plead with
him earnestly to take hold of it so that I could pull him out, wouldn’t he think that I
was mocking him? And if, in addition, I berate him for not grabbing the rope,
would he not begin to wish he could grab me by the throat? And how could I
maintain to any reasonable persons that I really wanted to bring the man up out of
the well but he was the one who wasn’t willing? So how can God really want to
save those to whom He doesn’t extend irresistible grace, that being the only
means whereby they can believe the Gospel?

Misunderstanding a Biblical Illustration

In a radio discussion with me,1 James White countered that the man at
the bottom of the well was dead and couldn’t grab the rope. The point of
the illustration, however, had nothing to do with grabbing a rope. No
illustration is perfect. Salvation is not by any effort on our part, nor do we
hang onto Christ to be saved. He keeps us secure.
 The point was that the rope was held so high above the man in the
well that the professed rescuer couldn’t be sincere. The would-be
rescuer, of course, is not obligated to save the man below him. But if he
does not desire to save him, why does he mock and chide the man at the
bottom of the well for failing to grab the rope while continuing to hold it
far beyond his reach?
The insincerity of the offer by the supposed rescuer was the point of
the imperfect illustration. And so it is with our Lord’s offer of salvation in
the Bible: Calvinism turns it into an offer that, though it seems to be
extended to all, really isn’t.
Nor does it help to picture the man at the bottom of the well as dead.
In that case, the supposed rescuer is pretending to call to a corpse that he
knows cannot hear him. Furthermore, if the man at the top has the power
to raise the dead man to life and take him out to safety but doesn’t do so,
how could he be sincere in his offer?
Such is the God of Calvinism: He pleads with men to repent, He sends
forth His servants to preach a gospel that seems to offer salvation to
every person, and He chides and damns those who do not believe, even
though Christ did not die for them. Yet He neglects to elect them to
salvation and does not give to them the essential faith without which they
cannot respond to His pleadings. In fact, He has from eternity past
irrevocably damned them eternally to the Lake of Fire!
Such insincerity cannot be explained away by the example of the
potter and clay. The fact that the potter can do with the clay what he
pleases could not explain the potter’s promising perfection to each lump
of clay and then discarding many, if not most, onto the rubbish heap.
Of course, God sovereignly has the right to save whom He will, and no
one could complain. But His sovereignty is only one facet of His Being.
God is love (i.e., love is the very essence of His character) and He is
merciful to all—exactly what we would expect of Him. We surely would
not expect the “Father of mercies, and the God of all comfort (2
Corinthians 1:3) to withhold mercy from any who so desperately need it
—much less that He would take pleasure in doing so. Surely, God is being
misrepresented by those who limit His love and mercy and grace to a
select number.
“As Many as Were Ordained to Eternal Life Believed”
One of the Calvinists’ favorite proof texts is Acts 13:48—“as many as
were ordained to eternal life believed.” Vance says, “Every Calvinist, no
matter what else he believes, uses this verse to prove Unconditional
Election....” Nettleton claims it is “this verse that made him a Calvinist.”2
White devotes four pages to it.3 Palmer exults, “Here is another text with
stunning clarity.... The stark simplicity of this text is astounding.”4
Certainly, “ordained to eternal life” is the translation of the Greek
word tasso (in this case tetagmenoi) found in all major translations (as
White points out).5 A number of paraphrases, however, give a decidedly
non-Calvinistic rendering. The Living Bible puts it, “...as many as wanted
eternal life, believed.” Rotherham’s Emphasized Bible says, “as many as
had become disposed for life age-abiding....” The Nazarene Translation
2000 by Mark Heber Miller has, “...all those who believed were disposed
to ageless Life.” Whatever the differing opinions of translators and
commentators, this one verse cannot undo what hundreds of others
establish.
The Calvinist, to support his beliefs, assumes that tetagmenoi must
mean “predestined to salvation.” Yet that is clearly not the meaning in
any of the seven other usages of tasso in the New Testament. If that were
the intent, why was tasso used and not prooridzo (predestinated)?
In fact, Adam Clarke declares rather dogmatically, “Whatever
tetagmenoi may mean, which is the word we translate ordained, it
includes no idea of preordination or predestination of any kind.... [O]f all
the meanings ever put on it, none agrees worse with its nature and
known signification than that which represents it as intending those who
were predestinated to eternal life; this is no meaning of the term and
should never be applied to it.”6
Nor does the context support the Calvinist rendering, as numerous
commentaries declare. McGarvey comments that “the context has no
allusion to anything like an appointment of one part, and a rejection of
the other, but the writer draws a line of distinction between the conduct
of certain Gentiles and that of the Jews addressed by Paul.... Luke says,
many of the Gentiles ‘were determined’ for everlasting life. It is an act of
the mind to which Paul objects on the part of the Jews, and it is as clearly
an act of mind in the Gentiles which Luke puts in contrast with it....”7
Several authorities trace the KJV’s “ordained” to the corrupt Latin
Vulgate, which, as T. E. Page points out, “has praeordinati, unfairly…”8
Cook’s Commentary reads, “The A.V. [KJV] has followed the Vulgate.
Rather, [it should read] were…disposed for eternal life, as in…
Josephus….”9 Likewise Dean Alford translated it, “as many as were
disposed to eternal life believed.”10 The Expositor’s Greek Testament says,
“There is no countenance here for the absolutum decretum of the
Calvinists.”11 A. T. Robertson likewise says: “The word ordain is not the
best translation here. ‘Appointed,’ as Hacket shows, is better…. There is
no evidence that Luke had in mind an absolutum decretum…of personal
salvation.”12
Greek grammarians tell us that tetagemenoi, a nominative case,
perfect tense, passive middle voice participle of tasso is used, indicating
an influence upon the Gentiles toward eternal life and believing the
gospel. That this is a present influence and, as Barnes says, “not…an
eternal decree,” is generally agreed. It was at least in part Paul’s
persuasive preaching—which would fit the immediate context and the
entire book of Acts: Paul and Barnabas “so spake, that a great multitude…
believed (Acts 14:1). “The verb…is middle…thus implies personal action…
among those who had ranged themselves for eternal life.”13
Some claim that the Dead Sea Scrolls, as well as comments from early
church writers, indicate that the first 15 chapters of Acts were probably
written first in Hebrew. The Greek would be a translation. Some scholars
claim that going back to a “redacted Hebrew” version, based upon word-
for-word Greek-Hebrew equivalents, would render Acts 13:48 more like
“as many as submitted to, needed, or wanted salvation, were saved.”
Furthermore, even if “ordained” were the correct meaning, these Greeks
still would have had to believe the gospel and accept Christ by an act of
their own faith and will, as all of Scripture testifies.
The Context Is Clear
Always salvation is promised to all (“Repent, and be baptized every
one of you” [Acts 2:38]) contingent upon individual faith (“Believe on the
Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved” [Acts 16:31]). Never is there a
hint of God’s predestining certain ones to heaven whom He will
sovereignly regenerate and irresistibly cause to believe the gospel while
withholding that grace from others. It would be a clear contradiction of
the rest of Acts and all of the Bible for 13:48 to mean that certain
Gentiles, but not Jews, were foreordained by God to go to heaven and
sovereignly given faith to believe the gospel.
The meaning depends upon: (1) comparative usages of tasso
elsewhere, and (2) the context. Here are all other usages: “…into a
mountain where Jesus had appointed them (Matthew 28:16); “For I also
am a man set under authority” (Luke 7:8); “…they determined that Paul
and Barnabas…should go up to Jerusalem” (Acts 15:2); “…all things which
are appointed for thee to do” (Acts 22:10); “they had appointed him a
day” (Acts 28:23); “…the powers that be are ordained of God” (Romans
13:1); “…they have addicted themselves to the ministry of the saints
(1 Corinthians 16:15). In none of these other usages in the New
Testament is there anything even close to a divine decree causing human
action.
The context is clear. In verse 46, Paul tells the Jews, “seeing that ye put
it [the gospel] from you…we turn to the Gentiles.” That was their personal
decision. Verse 48 presents the contrast between the Jews who had
rejected the gospel and the Gentiles who believed it. The implication is of
a personal decision by the Greeks, as well. There is no support for the
Calvinists’ claim that a sovereign decree was the sole reason.
Robertson comments,
The Jews here had voluntarily rejected the word of God. On the other side were
those Gentiles who gladly accepted what the Jews had rejected.... Why these
Gentiles here ranged themselves on God’s side as opposed to the Jews, Luke does
not tell us. This verse does not solve the vexed problem of divine sovereignty and
human free agency.14

The exact meaning of tetagmenoi is in dispute. Yet this is the best

verse the Calvinist can point to for support. And to do so, he must arrive
at a questionable meaning that contradicts literally hundreds of scriptures
where the meaning is crystal clear.
Predestination to Salvation—or Not?
Predestination and election are biblical teachings—but they are never
unto salvation. To the Calvinist, however, predestination/election is
always and only unto salvation—a view that is imposed wrongly upon
Scripture. In fact, election/predestination is always unto specific blessings
that accompany salvation, but not to salvation itself.
Foreknowledge is always given as the reason for predestination
(Romans 8:29; 1 Peter 1:2). Knowing who would believe the gospel is a
valid reason for electing or predestinating those persons to certain
blessings. But God’s knowledge that He would extend Irresistible Grace to
certain persons cannot be offered as the reason for doing so.
 White has an entire chapter titled “Unconditional Election a
Necessity.” Indeed, it is a necessity for Calvinism, but not on any other
basis. To define Unconditional Election, White quotes not from Scripture
but from the 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith, the Westminster
Confession of Faith, and a number of leading Calvinists such as James P.
Boyce:
Before the world was made, God’s eternal, immutable purpose, which originated
in the secret counsel and good pleasure of His will, moved Him to choose (or to
elect), in Christ, certain of mankind to everlasting glory.... (Baptist Confession) This
decree...is made “independent” of all such foreknowledge God has of what will
take place in time [and] predestines certain specific individuals to eternal life and
others it leaves to justice. This is an election unto salvation and...is utterly
unconditional... [of] either foreseen faith, actions, dispositions, or desires.
(Westminster) [Salvation is conditioned upon faith: “Believe...and thou shalt be
saved.”] The latter theory [i.e., the Calvinistic theory] is that God...of his own
purpose...has from Eternity...determined to save...a definite number of mankind
(not the whole race...not for...their faith...) but of his own good pleasure (simply
because he was pleased so to choose). (Boyce)15

These are fallible human opinions, which both Boyce and White admit
express merely a “theory” that must be tested by Scripture. More
quotations of men’s opinions follow in the remainder of White’s chapter.
The final one is from Calvin himself:
We shall never be clearly persuaded, as we ought to be, that our salvation flows
from the wellspring of God’s free mercy until we come to know his eternal
election, which illumines God’s grace by this contrast: that he does not
indiscriminately adopt all into the hope of salvation but gives to some what he
denies to others.16

Who ever imagined that God “indiscriminately adopt[s] into the hope
of salvation”? Only those who believe the gospel are saved.
Giving God a Bad Name
One would think that, rather than quoting this statement, Calvinists
would be embarrassed by it. How could God’s withholding of salvation
from billions to whom He could give it cause us to appreciate “the
wellspring of God’s free mercy” and “illumine God’s grace”? That is like
praising a man’s generosity by exposing his stinginess.
In their chapter on “Limited Atonement,” after explaining that Christ
died for only a select group and that all others have been damned by God
for eternity, John Piper and his staff defy all logic with this statement:
“Every time the gospel is preached to unbelievers it is the mercy of God
that gives this opportunity for salvation.”17 Opportunity for salvation for
those for whom Christ did not die, and who have been predestined to
eternal damnation? What taunting, cruel mockery!
Far from glorifying God, Calvinism gives God a bad name. Atheists and
other critics of the Bible ridicule this portrait of God as a monster who
takes pleasure in imposing suffering on mankind. Calvin’s God could save
the entire human race—but only saves a relative few in order, allegedly,
to demonstrate the greatness of His grace!
This continual emphasis upon God’s sovereignty to the exclusion of His
love, mercy, and grace pervades Calvinism. In the booklet that John Piper
and his pastoral staff at Bethlehem Baptist Church in Minneapolis
published, which promotes Calvinism, God’s love to lost sinners is
missing, while sovereignty is the repetitious, dominant theme. In the
preface, Piper writes, “To know him [God] in his sovereignty is to become
like an oak tree in the wind of adversity and confusion.”18 But entirely
missing is anything about knowing God’s love or loving Him.
The real issue is God’s love and character. God’s love for the world is
missing from Calvin’s Institutes. Indeed, God’s love for anyone, including
the elect, is scarcely mentioned—a stark contrast to the importance it is
given in the Bible. In Calvinism, it is not love that brings salvation to
mankind but God’s sovereign choice for His good pleasure.
God expects us to love our enemies and to do good to all. Calvin
admits that “God enjoins us to be merciful even to the unworthy....”19 Yet
He has a lesser standard for Himself? How could it glorify God for Him to
be less gracious than He commands mankind to be? And where does God
say that He limits His mercy—much less that He is thereby glorified?
Scripture declares, “The Lord is good to all” (Psalm 145:9), “plenteous
in mercy unto all” that call upon Him (Psalm 86:5), and the “God of our
salvation [is] the confidence of all the ends of the earth” (Psalm 65:5).
How can God be “good” to those whom He, according to Calvinism,
predestined to eternal torment? How can He be “plenteous in mercy”
unto those whom He could have saved but didn’t? And how can the God
of salvation be the “confidence” of those He takes pleasure in damning?
Calvin refers to “our most merciful Father,”20 yet he limits God’s mercy to
the elect.
Boyce offends the God-given conscience even of atheists in saying that
God chose to save only a few and to let the others perish, because He
“was pleased so to choose”! Where does God ever intimate that He is
pleased to let anyone perish? In fact, He repeatedly states the opposite—
that He has no pleasure in the wicked perishing.
A Strange “Mercy” and “Kindness”
The Baptist Confession declares that God’s election, which is
supposedly a manifestation of His mercy, “predestines certain specific
individuals to eternal life and others it leaves to justice.” How can it be a
manifestation of mercy to leave the condemned to suffer the penalty that
justice demands, when they could be justified and forgiven and rescued
from eternal punishment? This is not a question of the guilt of sinners or
of whether they deserve judgment, which we all do. The issue is mercy.
Surely there can be no limit to the infinite mercy of the infinite God!
God solemnly warns man, “If thou forbear to deliver them that are
drawn unto death...doth not he that pondereth the heart consider...and
shall not he render to every man according to his works” (Proverbs
24:11–12)? Yet Calvin’s God not only fails to deliver the lost but
mercilessly decrees their doom! This cannot be the God of the Bible, of
whom Jesus said, “it is not the will of your Father which is in heaven, that
one of these little ones should perish” (Matthew 18:14)!
These “little ones” grow into adults. Is it then that God is pleased to
damn many whom He formerly loved? But Calvinistic predestination
refers to the ultimate torment even of children.
Calvin declares, “Hence the highest proof of Scripture is uniformly
taken from the character of him whose word it is.”21 How can he dare to
say this while impugning God’s character? Calvin then goes on to extol
God’s mercy and grace as the pinnacle of His character:
There are certain passages which contain more vivid descriptions of the divine
character, setting it before us.... Moses, indeed, seems to have intended briefly to
comprehend whatever may be known of God by man, when he said [actually God
said], “The LORD, The LORD God, merciful and gracious, long-suffering, and abundant
in goodness and truth, keeping mercy for thousands, forgiving iniquity and
transgression and sin, and that will by no means clear the guilty....” (Exodus 34:6–
7) In Jeremiah, where God proclaims the character in which he would have us to
acknowledge him...it is substantially the same.... “I am the LORD which exercise
loving-kindness, judgment, and righteousness in the earth....” (Jeremiah 9:24)22

Yet elsewhere Calvin claims that God’s withholding of His grace, mercy,
and love from all except the elect enhances the goodness of His
character! In fact, Paul argues that God has found “all the world…guilty”
(Romans 3:19) and has “concluded them all [Jew and Gentile] in unbelief,
that he might have mercy upon all” (Romans 11:32). Unquestionably, the
all who are guilty and in unbelief must be the whole world of sinners,
Jews and Gentiles, all of whom are by nature rebels and in unbelief—and
these are the all upon whom God is determined to have mercy. It could
not be stated more clearly throughout Scripture that God’s mercy
extends to all.
Denying a Clear Contradiction
 As we have already seen, White informs us, “Why is one man raised to
eternal life and another left to eternal destruction...? It is ‘according to
the kind intention of His will.’”23 So it is God’s kindness that causes Him to
damn so many! We are offended for our loving God!
The Calvinist, however, denies any contradiction in the idea that the
God of infinite love is pleased to predestine billions to eternal torment.
Calvin even castigates those who recognize this lie. He praises Augustine
for throwing out of the Church any who suggest that God couldn’t really
love those He has predestined to eternal torment:
Were anyone to address the people thus: If you do not believe, the reason is,
because God has already doomed you to destruction: he would not only
encourage sloth, but also give countenance to wickedness. Were any one to...say,
that those who hear will not believe because they are reprobates [i.e., damned by
God’s foreordination], it were imprecation rather than doctrine.

Wherefore, Augustine not undeservedly orders such, as senseless teachers or

sinister and ill-omened prophets, to retire from the Church.24

Calvin is trying to escape the consequences of his own dogmas, but he

can’t. He repeatedly insists throughout his Institutes that “God saves
whom he wills of his mere good pleasure”25 and that some are
“predestinated to salvation, and others to destruction.”26 Calvin says that
the latter, whom it was God’s good “pleasure to doom to
destruction...are excluded from access to life....”27 How those whom the
omnipotent God has “excluded from access to life” could be responsible
for their own doom and could be the beneficiaries of His infinite love is
incomprehensible.
It is as if God has thrown into the ocean billions of people whom He
has so created that they cannot swim a stroke. He “mercifully” rescues
some of them and leaves the rest to drown in eternal death. How could
anyone say to those whom God created to drown, “It is your own fault!”?
How can Calvin (and Calvinists today) say it is “wickedness” and
“imprecation” to say that the non-elect cannot believe the gospel
because God has excluded them from faith, when, in fact, that is exactly
what Calvinism teaches? It is outrageous to suggest that those whom God
foreordains to eternal doom are not only to blame for their fate but are
the objects of His love, mercy, and grace! What Love Is This?!
Biblical Mercy, Kindness, and Grace
All Scripture contradicts the false doctrine that God would withhold
mercy from anyone. In fact, God is “ready to pardon, gracious and
merciful, slow to anger, and of great kindness” (Nehemiah 9:17). Such
statements are misleading if God intended to pardon only an elect group
and predestined the rest (or simply left them) to eternal torment! Of the
good and righteous man, the Bible says, “he is ever [always to all]
merciful” (Psalm 37:26). Surely the very “gracious and merciful God”
(Nehemiah 9:31) would be no less than always merciful to all. But
Calvinism limits God’s grace and mercy to a select group called the elect
—a lower standard of mercy than He expects of us.
The Apostle James points out the hypocrisy of saying to someone who
is “naked, and destitute of daily food...be ye warmed and filled” and then
failing to meet his need (James 2:15–16). Yet the God who inspired
James, according to Calvinism, tells a lost and perishing world, “Believe on
the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved,” but withholds the faith
without which they cannot believe and be saved. Such a God sees those
who are in greater need than physically naked and destitute, and He fails
to rescue them from an eternal hell even though He could in His
omnipotence and sovereignty do so—in fact, He has predestined them to
this horrible fate. Is this really the God of the Bible, or a God that Calvin
borrowed from Augustine?
The psalmist rejoices that God’s “tender mercies are over all his
works” (Psalm 145:9). The Calvinist, however, changes Scripture to limit
God’s mercy to “the elect.” Christ exhorts us, “Be ye therefore merciful,
as your Father also is merciful” (Luke 6:36). If our Father in heaven is
merciful to only the elect, we could neglect helping multitudes and claim
that so doing reveals how merciful we are!
Jesus illustrates the mercy of His Father in many ways. He tells us that
after crying out, “God be merciful to me a sinner” (Luke 18:13), the
publican was mercifully justified. Paul refers to “the Father of mercies and
the God of all comfort” (2 Corinthians 1:3). Would the very “Father of
mercies” be any less merciful to all than He expects mankind to be?
“Blessed are the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy” (Matthew 5:7).
These scriptures, and scores more in the same vein, tell us that God’s
mercy is infinite, extending to all mankind without discrimination. The
psalmist says, “I will sing of the mercies of the LORD for ever...” (Psalm
89:1). God’s mercies are unto all who call upon Him. Indeed, the very
glory of God is in His mercy to all mankind.
Of course, God has the right to limit His mercy. However, Scripture
declares repeatedly and in many ways that God does not limit His mercy
but extends it to all. One is forced to reject Calvinism on this basis if on no
other, for it contradicts the very character of God that is consistently
displayed throughout Scripture.
In contrast, the non-Calvinist believes that God offers salvation to all
without discrimination, but He cannot make anyone believe, for that
would violate their free will and eliminate love. Those who will spend
eternity in the Lake of Fire will be there because of their own choice and
won’t be able to blame God.
Whether God loves all, is merciful to all, and provides salvation for all
to accept or reject, is the real issue. The answer to that question should
become increasingly clear to the reader in the following pages.

1. Straight Talk Live (KPXQ, Phoenix AZ, 11 August 2000). Audiotape AT073, available
through The Berean Call, P. O. Box 7019, Bend OR 97708.
2. David Nettleton, Chosen to Salvation (Schaumburg, IL: Regular Baptist Press, 1983), 16;
cited in Laurence M. Vance, The Other Side of Calvinism (Pensacola, FL: Vance
Publications, rev. ed. 1999), 345.
3. James R. White, The Potter’s Freedom (Amityville, NY: Calvary Press Publishing, 2000),
186–90.
4. Edwin H. Palmer, the five points of calvinism (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, enlarged
ed., 20th prtg. 1980) 29.
5. White, Potter’s, 187–88.
6. Adam Clarke, Adam Clarke’s One-Volume Commentary, (Cook Publications, 1989), 995.
7. J. W. McGarvey, Commentary on Acts (Lexington, KY: Transylvania Printing and
Publishing Co. 1863).
8. T. E. Page, The Acts of the Apostles, Greek Text with Explanatory Notes (New York:
Macmillan and Co., 1897), 169.
9. Frederic C. Cook, ed., The Bible Commentary (New York: Charles Scribner Sons, 1895).
10. Henry Alford, The New Testament for English Readers (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book
House, 1983), I:745.
11. R. J. Knowling, The Acts of the Apostles, The Expositor’s Greek New Testament
(Pennsylvania: Dodd, Mead and Co., 1900), 300.
12. Archibald Thomas Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament (New York: Harper and
Bros., 1930), III: 200.
13. Acts, An Introduction and Commentary, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries (Downer’s
Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1974), additional notes 110.
14. A. T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament, (New York: Harper and Bros.,
1930).
15. White, Potter’s, 125–26.
16. John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion. Trans. Henry Beveridge. (Grand Rapids,
MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1998 ed.) III:21:1.
17. John Piper and Pastoral Staff, “TULIP: What We Believe about the Five Points of
Calvinism: Position Paper of the Pastoral Staff” (Minneapolis, MN: Desiring God Ministries,
1997), 14.
18. Ibid.
19. Calvin, Institutes., III: xx, 15.
20. Ibid., 3.
21. Ibid., iii, 4.
22. Ibid., ii, 8, 2.
23. White, Potter’s, 177.
24. Calvin, Institutes, III: xxiii, 14.
25. Ibid., xxi, 1.
26. Ibid.
27. Ibid., 7.
17—Foreknowledge and
Predestination/Election
IN SCRIPTURE, the basic meaning of the terms predestination and
election is the same: to mark out beforehand for a special purpose and
blessing. On what basis? The sole reason that is always given is
foreknowledge. So declare both Peter and Paul: “For whom he did
foreknow [Greek: proginosko], he also did predestinate [proorizo] to be
conformed to the image of his Son...” (Romans 8:29); “Elect according to
[kata] the foreknowledge [prognosis] of God the Father, through
sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience...” (1 Peter 1:2).
It seems that God predestined certain blessings for those He foreknew
would believe the gospel and be saved. The heavenly Father planned
from eternity past an inheritance for those who would become His
children through faith in Christ Jesus: “That in the ages to come he might
shew the exceeding riches of his grace in his kindness toward us through
Christ Jesus” (Ephesians 2:7).
Never does election or predestination refer to salvation, but always
and only to particular benefits. “What must be borne in mind is the fact
that predestination is not God’s predetermining from past ages who
should and who should not be saved. Scripture does not teach this
view.”1 Ironside declares: “…There is no reference in these four verses
[the only four that refer to predestination] to either heaven or hell, but to
Christlikeness eventually. Nowhere are we told in Scripture that God
predestined one man to be saved and another to be lost.”2
Perverting Predestination
Edward Hulme says of Calvin, “Predestination was his pivotal dogma….
‘Everything,’ says Calvin, ‘depends upon the mere will of God; if some are
damned and others saved it is because God has created some for death
and others for life.’”3 Calvin declares: “I say with Augustine, that the Lord
has created those who, as he certainly foreknew, were to go to
destruction, and he did so because he so willed. Why he willed, it is not
ours to ask....”4
Again, Palmer informs us, “The first word Calvinism suggests to most
people is predestination; and…the other four points [of TULIP] follow.”5
John H. Leith writes, “Predestination can be taken as a special mark of
Reformed theology.”6 Pink adds, “Not only has God the right to do as He
wills with the creatures of His own hands, but He exercises this right, and
nowhere is that seen more plainly than in His predestinating
grace.”7Grace preordains multitudes to eternal doom?
Predestination (according to Calvinism) is the “eternal decree of God,
by which...some are preordained to eternal life, others to eternal
damnation....”8 Calvin reiterates: “Those, therefore, whom God passes by
he reprobates, and that for no other cause but because he is pleased to
exclude them from the inheritance which he predestines to his
children....”9 It is a libel on the character of God to say that damning
billions pleases Him! Yet this distasteful doctrine is the inevitable result of
Calvinism’s extreme view of sovereignty.
The Calvinist “thrusts his doctrines of election and predestination into
every conceivable Scripture text.”10 Vance goes on to say:
Clark claims that “Isaiah has some two dozen verses that bear rather directly on
the doctrine of predestination.”11 [Yet] the word neither occurs in Isaiah nor
anywhere else in the Old Testament. Custance is even bolder: “Turning more
specifically to the matter of Election to salvation, consider the following.”12 Then
follows a list of twelve passages from the Old Testament in which election is not
mentioned and salvation is not even in view.13 Turning now to the New
Testament, we find the same thing. Boettner audaciously declares: “There is hardly
 a chapter in the Gospel of John which does not either mention or imply election or
reprobation.14 But even after a statement like that he didn’t give any verses. In
answering the question, “I would like for you to list the scriptures which teach that
God elected individuals to salvation before the world began,” one Sovereign-Grace
Baptist lists six scriptures where election is not even mentioned.15

The Role of Predestination in Calvinism

Calvin always limits God’s mercy and love to the elect. As an Islamic
expert says of that religious system: “The Divine will is irresistible, and has
decreed in every detail the entire course of the universe which He
governs, and the fate each moment of every creature therein.... Its
dogma of predestination and of fate...leaves no room for human free-
will....”16 So it is with Calvinism.
Horsch comments, “According to Augustine’s teaching, the history of
mankind would, from a religious and spiritual point of view, be little more
than a puppet show....”17 R. C. Sproul writes, “God wills all things that
come to pass...God desired for man to fall into sin…God created sin.”18
Sheldon agrees: “The Augustinian scheme...does represent Him [God] as
foreordaining that the fall should involve, beyond every chance of rescue,
the eternal ruin and damnation of the greater part of the race…”19
Without any apparent embarrassment or regret, Palmer explains that by
the teaching on predestination in Calvin’s Institutes and echoed by most
Calvinists to this day, God is the author of everything and therefore even
of all sin:
Foreordination means God’s sovereign plan, whereby He decides all that is to
happen in the entire universe. Nothing in this world happens by chance. God is in
back of everything. He decides and causes all things to happen that do happen....
He has fore-ordained everything “after the counsel of his will” (Ephesians
1:11): the moving of a finger, the beating of a heart, the laughter of a girl, the
mistake of a typist—even sin.20

No wonder Susanna Wesley wrote to her son John: “The doctrine of

predestination as maintained by rigid Calvinists is very shocking, and
ought utterly to be abhorred, because it charges the most holy God with
being the author of sin.”21 This abhorrent doctrine is not biblical but is a
human invention. Calvinism’s five points require a sovereignty that allows
man no freedom of the will, thereby necessitating that God be the
predestinator and effective cause of all.
Consequently, mankind could blame God for everything, and Calvinists
ought to acknowledge that fact. In a feature article as part of Christianity
Today’s “occasional series on doctrinal renewal, sponsored by a grant
from Lilly Endowment Inc.,” two Master of Divinity students at Princeton
Theological Seminary recounted the joy of their conversion to Calvinism:
“Blaming God for everything has been such a joy that we decided the
least we could do…was to tell the world how we got here.”22
Once again, looming over Calvin, is the long shadow of Augustine. Paul
K. Jewett calls Augustine “the first true Predestinarian.”23 Of Calvinism’s
central doctrine of salvation through Irresistible Grace and Unconditional
Election, Loraine Boettner declares, “This cardinal truth of Christianity
was first clearly seen by Augustine.”24 Of that great Catholic “Saint”
(another fallacy: in the Bible, all believers are saints), John Horsch
commented:
Augustine...was by theological speculation led to the belief in predestination...
[that] God in his mercy selects and predestinates a [certain] number…for eternal
life…. From the rest of mankind…God withholds his grace, and will condemn them
even if they should die in infancy....25

This repugnant doctrine of punishing innocent infants mocks Christ’s

words, “Suffer the little children to come unto me, and forbid them not,
for of such is the kingdom of God” (Mark 10:14).
Where Is God’s Love?
Every biblical passage that mentions predestination/election will be
searched in vain for any reference to anyone being predestined to
damnation. How, then, does the Calvinist support such a doctrine? By
implication only. Those whom God did not elect have been just as surely
damned by His eternal decree. Calvin said it is “childish” to deny this,
“since there could be no election without its opposite reprobation.”26
Boettner declares:
The doctrine of absolute Predestination of course logically holds that some are
foreordained to death as truly as others are foreordained to life. The very terms
“elect” and “election” imply the terms “non-elect” and “reprobation”…. We
believe that from all eternity God has intended to leave some of Adam’s posterity
in their sins, and that the decisive factor…is to be found only in God’s will.27

What a misrepresentation of God! We search the writings of Calvinists

in vain to find some hint of regret or sympathy for those hopelessly
doomed by God’s eternal decree. How could the God who damns
multitudes then profess His love for them—or regret His sovereign
decrees? Love and compassion—where shall we find these greatest of all
virtues in Calvinism?
Calvinists propose various theories to make it seem that God really
does love those He predestines to eternal torment. One of the most
callous theories comes from Michael Horton in a book with a foreword by
J. I. Packer. He argues, “This view intensifies God’s love, by limiting it only
to those who believe. That sure beats the indiscriminate, general
benevolence we seem to be hearing much about today.”28
For God to love all mankind would be a despicable “indiscriminate,
general benevolence”? Limiting God’s love to a select group intensifies
God’s love? What madness!
As noted, John Piper and his pastoral staff published a booklet titled
“TULIP: What We Believe about the Five Points of Calvinism.” Like Calvin’s
Institutes, it glorifies God’s sovereignty (as we have already seen), but
nowhere in its pages is there even a mention of God’s love for sinners.
John Calvin is presented as “the famous theologian and pastor of
Geneva,”29 with not a word about the floggings, imprisonments, tortures,
banishments, and burnings at the stake that he encouraged there. Piper
also praises Augustine,30 but without a hint that he was the father of
modern Roman Catholicism and held to numerous doctrines that
evangelicals find repugnant. Is it honest to withhold vital facts in order to
promote Calvinism?
Five times in the New Testament, Christ commands us, “Thou shalt
love thy neighbour as thyself” (Matthew 19:19, etc.). Paul twice, and
James once, reiterate this command that one must love one’s neighbor as
oneself (Romans 13:9; Galatians 5:14; James 2:8). Christ makes it clear
that everyone who is in need is one’s neighbor (Luke 10:29–37). Surely
none are in greater need than the lost. Yet Calvinism tells us that the God
who “is love,” and who “so loved the world” and sent His Son “that the
world through him might be saved” (John 3:17)—even though He could
save all—damns billions for His “good pleasure” and to prove His justice.
Aghast at such doctrine, one can only repeat in astonishment, What Love
Is This?
Distorting a Metaphor
Calvinism negates God’s love, mercy, and grace for any except the
elect. “All who will finally be saved, were chosen to salvation by God the
Father, before the foundation of the world, and given to Jesus Christ in
the covenant of grace.”31 Piper writes, “Election refers to God’s choosing
whom to save. It is unconditional in that there is no condition man must
meet before God chooses to save him. Man is dead in trespasses and sins.
So there is no condition he can meet....”32 John MacArthur, too, declares
that unbelievers are “no more able to respond to God than a cadaver”
and “are incapable of any spiritual activity....”33 Vance points out the
obvious error:
And finally, if you make an exact parallel between a physically dead man and a
spiritually dead man...then you likewise have to say...[if] he can’t accept Christ
because he is dead then he can’t reject Christ either. A [physically] dead man
 cannot believe on Jesus Christ, but a [spiritually] dead man can.”34

The physically dead can do nothing, not even commit sin; so they could
hardly present a proper analogy of spiritual death. The spiritually “dead”
are able to live active lives, get an education, earn a living, defy God, and
continue to sin—or submit to the conviction of the Holy Spirit, repent of
their sins, and believe on the Lord Jesus Christ as their Savior. Yet
MacArthur reiterates:
How can a person who is dead in sin, blinded by Satan, unable to understand the
things of God, and continuously filled with evil suddenly exercise saving faith? A
corpse could no sooner come out of a grave and walk.35

On the contrary, to the spiritually dead, Isaiah writes: “Ho, everyone

that thirsteth, come ye to the waters.... Let the wicked forsake his way,
and the unrighteous man his thoughts: and let him return unto the LORD,
and he will have mercy upon him; and to our God, for he will abundantly
pardon” (Isaiah 55:1, 7). Surely the wicked are dead in trespasses and
sins. Yet they are commanded to come, repent, and drink of Christ.
We agree that none would seek the Lord unless He first seeks them.
Scripture declares, however, that God seeks all. He calls upon all who
thirst to come to Him and drink, and upon all who are wicked to turn unto
Him in reliance on His mercy. It must therefore be possible for those who
are spiritually dead to hear God’s voice, turn to the Lord, believe the
gospel, and receive pardon by His grace.
Yet the insistent denial that the unregenerate can believe in Christ is a
major point in Calvinism. Steele and Thomas argue that “The sinner is
dead, blind, and deaf to the things of God.... Consequently...it takes
regeneration by which the Spirit makes the sinner alive and gives him a
new nature. Faith is not something man contributes to salvation...but is
God’s gift to the sinner....”36 Yet when Paul and Silas said, “Believe on the
Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved” (Acts 16:31), were they
suggesting that by believing the Philippian jailor would contribute faith to
his salvation? Hardly.
And how could Paul and Silas even address the spiritually dead and
invite them to believe on Christ? How could they know that those to
whom they gave the invitation were going to be sovereignly regenerated
and given faith to believe? Obviously Paul and Silas were not Calvinists.
A Simple Exegesis
Peter says we are “elect according to [kata]” God’s foreknowledge (1
Peter 1:2). The Greek kata carries the meaning of homogeneity or
harmony. Thus God’s election/predestination was in agreement, or
harmony, with something He foreknew about those whom He
predestined to partake of the declared blessings. What could that have
been?
Surely the most obvious possibility would be that God foreknew who
would repent and believe the gospel, and on that basis He predestined
them “to be conformed to the image of his Son” and “unto obedience.”
Apparently departing from his oft-professed Calvinism, Spurgeon
declared:
Mark, then, with care, that OUR CONFORMITY TO CHRIST IS THE SACRED OBJECT
OF PREDESTINATION.... The Lord in boundless grace has resolved that a company
whom no man can number...shall be restored to His image, in the particular form
in which His Eternal Son displays it...the likeness of the Lord from Heaven.
[Emphasis in original]37

In order to escape foreknowledge as the basis of predestination, the

Calvinist must establish another meaning for foreknow/foreknowledge
that fits his theory. Generally, this attempt has taken two forms. Most try
to maintain that foreknow/foreknowledge, instead of meaning to know in
advance, means to determine in advance, or to foreordain. Piper writes,
“he [God] foreknows—that is, elects—a people for himself....”38 Others
suggest that it means to love beforehand. There are, however, several
reasons why neither of these stratagems will work.
Various Calvinist authors argue that “foreknowledge” is “the
equivalent of a determined counsel...God’s omniscient wisdom and
intention...God’s prerogative to ‘choose beforehand.’”39 MacArthur
writes:
God’s foreknowledge, therefore, is not a reference to His omniscient foresight but
to His foreordination. God does indeed foresee who is going to be a believer, but
the faith He foresees is the faith He Himself creates. It’s not that He merely sees
what will happen in the future; rather He ordains it. The Bible clearly teaches that
God sovereignly chooses people to believe in Him.40

He hasn’t shown us from Scripture—he simply declares it to be so in

order to support Calvinism. But this is not what Scripture says! Piper
quotes C. E. B. Cranfield, who refers to the foreknowledge of Romans
8:29 as “that special taking knowledge of a person which is God’s electing
grace.” Piper then comments that “foreknowledge is virtually the same as
election.... He foreknows—that is, elects—a people for himself....”41 But
the Greek word is proginosko, which means to know beforehand in the
sense of foreseeing. The Calvinist is desperately twisting the Scripture in
order to maintain his theory.
Peter very clearly distinguishes counsel or determination as well as
election from foreknowledge: “him [Christ], being delivered by the
determinate [horizo] counsel [boule] and foreknowledge [proginosko] of
God...” (Acts 2:23). If these are the same, then Peter is saying
nonsensically that Christ was “delivered by the foreknowledge and
foreknowledge,” or by “the determined counsel and determined counsel”
of God. Paul likewise makes a clear distinction: “For whom he [God] did
foreknow, he also [kai] did predestinate....” The Greek kai denotes a
differentiation, thus making it clear that foreknowledge could not be the
same as predestination, or Paul, as already pointed out, would be
redundantly saying, “whom he did predestinate he also did predestinate.”
The Essential Function of Foreknowledge
This inspired statement by Peter on the Day of Pentecost reveals that
in foretelling future events through His prophets and accomplishing them
in history, God takes into account what He by His foreknowledge knows
will be the actions and reactions of men. He did not cause Judas to betray
Christ, nor did He cause the Jews to reject Him or the Romans to crucify
Him—or predestine them to do so. He arranged that these particular
individuals, who He knew would act in that manner, were on the scene at
the right time to fulfill His will, though they were unaware that they were
fulfilling prophecy. As Paul declared, “…because they knew him not, nor
yet the voices of the prophets which are read every sabbath day, they
fulfilled them in condemning him” (Acts 13:27).
To foreknow is simply to know in advance. And to know in advance is
not the same as to foreordain. If God simply elected/predestined certain
ones because He elected/predestined them, there would be no reason to
mention foreknowledge at all. Clearly, that God foreknew certain persons
would believe the gospel was the reason for electing/predestining them
to the special blessings.
That foreknowledge means nothing more nor less than to know
beforehand is clear not only in the particular scriptures above, but also in
other places where the same Greek words are used in the New
Testament. In referring to Jewish leaders of his acquaintance who he says
“knew me from the beginning [i.e., before that day]” (Acts 26:4–5), Paul
uses the same word, progonisko, translated at Romans 8:29 “for whom
he did foreknow.” Peter uses the same word in a different context but
with the identical meaning: “ye know [proginosko] these things before...”
(2 Peter 3:17).
Other Calvinists point to the way sexual intercourse is expressed in the
Old Testament: “Adam knew [yada] his wife” (Genesis 4:1), “Cain knew
[yada] his wife” (verse 17), etc. They then suggest that “whom God
foreknew” actually means “whom God loved beforehand.” But that is
nonsense.
While yada is at times used to denote a special relationship—“I did
know thee in the wilderness” (Hosea 13:5), “You only have I known of all
the families of the earth” (Amos 3:2)—never does it mean to know in
advance, whereas that is the principle meaning of proginosko and
prognosis. There is, therefore, no relationship between these words that
would be of any help in supporting Calvinism.
Furthermore, to “know” one’s wife in a sexual way could not be before
the fact, nor does God “know” man in that manner. Therefore, the
attempt to link love with foreknowledge through yada, to give the
meaning “foreloved,” won’t work. That strained effort, however, reveals
the lengths to which the Calvinist is both forced and willing to go to
protect his theory.
Why Not Accept the Simplest Meaning?
Clearly, God in His omniscience has foreknown from eternity past who,
when convicted of sin and drawn by His Holy Spirit, would willingly
respond to the gospel. On the basis of that foreknowledge He
predestined, or elected, those particular persons to special blessings:
“...To be conformed to the image of his Son...unto obedience....” Paul
adds another blessing: “According as he hath chosen us in him before the
foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame
before him in love” (Ephesians 1:4). Dave Breese writes, “We also notice
that election in Scripture is not unto salvation, but ‘unto obedience....’
[In] Romans chapter 8...predestination is based upon the foreknowledge
of God and its object is not salvation but conformity to the image of
Christ.”42
Paul and Peter are encouraging Christians with what God has in store
for those who believe the gospel. As Paul declares, “Eye hath not seen,
nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things
which God hath prepared for them that love him. But God hath revealed
them unto us by his Spirit...” (1 Corinthians 2:9–10).
Furthermore, not only is predestination/election never said to be unto
salvation, but Paul carefully separates predestination from salvation
whether in its call, its justification, or its glorification: “whom he did
predestinate, them he also [kai] called...them he also [kai] justified...them
he also [kai] glorified” (Romans 8:30). The Greek kai shows that a
distinction is being made: predestination is not the same as calling,
justification, or glorification. Hobbs comments, “Predestination...simply
means that God has predetermined that those who respond affirmatively
to His call...will be justified...and furthermore will be glorified. All of this is
‘according to His purpose’....”43 The plain meaning of the text is clear.
More Redundancies and Nonsense
There is a further problem with the Calvinist interpretation of “fore-
knowledge.” Because it rejects knowing what man would do (i.e., repent
and believe the gospel) it can involve nothing more than God knowing
what He would do. To say that God foreknew what He had predestined
would be nonsense.
Moreover, it would be impossible for God to “foreknow” what He
purposed to do because His purposes have always existed. As James said,
“Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world
[aion]”. (Acts 15:18). The Greek aion, rather, carries the meaning of “from
all eternity.”
Ironically, Rob Zins accuses non-Calvinists of teaching that “there was a
time when God knew not [what man would do].... However, it is our
contention that God knows all things because He wills all things.”44 On
the contrary, we affirm that from eternity past God has known all that
would happen in the universe and in the minds and affairs of men—not
because He “wills all things” but because He knows all things, i.e., is
omniscient.
 Piper insists that “God does not foreknow the free decisions of people
to believe in him because there aren’t any such free decisions to know.”45
If so, man is a puppet with God pulling the strings, making foreknowledge
meaningless. Without free choice man would not be morally responsible,
could not love God, know God’s love, receive the gift of salvation, have
meaningful communion with God, or worship Him. Spurgeon asked: “Shall
we never be able to drive into men’s minds the truth that predestination
and free agency are both facts?”46
Yet White writes, “In other words, the foreknowledge of God is based
upon His decree, plan, or purpose which expresses His will, and not upon
some foreseen act of positive volition on the part of man.” Such a
conclusion is not only unbiblical but assaults reason. There is no point in
saying that God foreknew His eternal decrees—nor could He. Since His
decrees have always been, and thus were never future to Him, there is no
way in which He could know what they would be before they were
decreed.
Neither could one say that God, because He knew in advance that He
had decreed to save certain persons, therefore saved them.
Foreknowledge is very clearly the reason given for election and
predestination. God’s knowing in advance what He would do could never
be the reason for His doing it.
Clearly, knowing in advance who would believe the gospel, God made
certain that those individuals heard the gospel, and He predestined them
to partake of the many blessings He planned to bestow on the redeemed
throughout eternity. Such is the reasonable and legitimate conclusion to
be derived from the clear language expressed in these passages. Why go
to such great lengths to find another meaning, except to support a
theory?
A Closer Look at Election
The words “predestinate” and “predestinated” are used only four
times in Scripture. The first three have already been considered. The
fourth will be dealt with later. Election has a similar meaning, and the
words “elect,” “elected,” “election,” and “elect’s” are together used
twenty-seven times in the Bible.
The objects of God’s election/predestination are called “the elect.” The
word “elect” (bachiyr in Hebrew, eklektos in Greek) is used in a variety of
ways. It refers to the Messiah (Isaiah 42:1; 1 Peter 2:6), to Israel or Jews
(Isaiah 45:4; 65:9, 22; Matthew 24: 31; Mark 13:27), to the church
(Romans 8:33; Colossians 3:12; Titus 1:1), to both Israel and the church
(Matthew 24:24; Mark 13:22; Luke 18:7), to angels (1 Timothy 5:21), and
to a lady (2 John 1,13).
These verses cover every mention of the word “elect” throughout the
entire Bible. Not once is that word used to designate a special class of
persons whom God has marked out for salvation and whom alone He
loves. Contradicting Scripture (but agreeing with Calvin’s Institutes), a
minister of the Protestant Reformed Churches in America writes, “Thus it
cannot be that God loves everyone. Since God’s love is sovereign and
therefore always a saving love, only those who experience the salvation
of the Lord can be the objects of His love.”47 Again we must ask, What
love is this? And where in the Scripture is this idea expressed?
The Five Pertinent Scriptures
The word “elect” is found four times in the Old Testament: once
referring to the Messiah (Isaiah 42:1) and three times referring to Israel
(Isaiah 45:4; 65:9, 22). None of these is pertinent to our inquiry. In the
New Testament, the word “elect” is found seventeen times, the word
“election” six times, the word “elect’s” three times, and the word
“elected” once.
Eliminating the one reference to angels, the one reference to Christ
himself, the three references that could be both to Israel and the church,
the three to a lady, the four to those Jews who have been preserved
through the Great Tribulation and survived Armageddon, and the six that
are simply a name for believers in Christ, we are left with five that pertain
to the general subject of election:

1) That the purpose of God according to election might

stand, not of works, but of him that calleth.... (Romans
9:11)

2) There is a remnant according to the election of grace.

(Romans 11:5)

3) Knowing, brethren beloved, your election of God....(1

Thessalonians 1:4)

4) Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father,

through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and
sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and
peace be multiplied. (1 Peter 1:2)

5) Wherefore the rather, brethren, give diligence to make

your calling and election sure.... (2 Peter 1:10)

These scriptures present the following truths: (1) God works a definite
purpose through election; (2) election involves not all mankind but a
“remnant”; (3) election is according to God’s grace; (4) election is
“according to the foreknowledge of God the Father”; and (5) some
responsibility rests upon the elect to make their “election sure.”
If election is to salvation by Irresistible Grace without any intelligent or
moral choice on man’s part, it would be impossible to be sure of one’s
election. But if election is to service and blessing, Peter is reinforcing in
different words Paul’s exhortation to “walk worthy of the vocation
wherewith ye are called” (Ephesians 4:1–6).
 Thus, to make one’s election sure is to fulfill the responsibility that
comes with election, not to somehow be sure that one is among the elect
and thus eternally saved. Marvin R. Vincent, an authority on biblical
languages explains, “Ekloge, election [is] used of God’s selection of men
or agencies for special missions or attainments.... [Nowhere] in the New
Testament is there any warrant for the revolting doctrine that God
predestined a definite number of mankind to eternal life, and the rest to
eternal destruction.”48
Calvin’s Fallacious Arguments
As already noted, election is determined by God’s foreknowledge:
“elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father.” In attempting
to make predestination and election pertain to salvation so that it would
fit his theory, Calvin entangled himself in fallacious reasoning and even
heresy.
Of Ephesians 1:4–5, “According as he hath chosen us in him before the
foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame
before him in love: having predestinated us unto the adoption of children
by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will,”
Calvin wrote:
By saying they were elected before the foundation of the world, he [God] takes
away all reference to worth.... In the additional statement that they were elected
that they might be holy, the apostle openly refutes the error of those who deduce
election from prescience, since he declares that whatever virtue appears in men is
the result of election.”49

His misunderstanding is obvious. That God would predestine to certain

blessings those whom He foreknew would believe the gospel has nothing
at all to do with their “worth.” It is folly to suggest that some worth is
ascribed to sinners if, by their own free choice, they believe the gospel
and receive the Lord Jesus Christ as Savior. Indeed, it is because of their
unworthiness and desperate need of salvation that sinners turn to Him.
 And how could the blessings that are “the result of election” (as Calvin
says above) be “virtues” for which those who receive them can take
credit? In fact, the why of election is not even mentioned here. Therefore,
this scripture cannot be used to dismiss what is so clearly stated in
Romans 8:29 and 1 Peter 1:2—that God’s foreknowledge is the reason
behind His choosing certain ones to specific blessings.
The Calvinist argues that “elect according to the foreknowledge of
God...whom he did foreknow them he also did predestinate” can’t mean
what it seems to mean, or God’s sovereignty would be undermined. On
the contrary, there is nothing inherent in the concept of sovereignty that
requires that those to whom God sovereignly offers a gift cannot
genuinely receive or reject it. And surely, God in His foreknowledge would
know who those persons would be and could plan to bestow special
blessings upon them.
That God, being outside of and independent of time, could know the
future without causing it has been recognized for centuries by many who
could not in good conscience accept the Calvinist definition of
foreknowledge and predestination. For example, around 1780 John
Wesley declared in a sermon that
When we speak of God’s foreknowledge we…speak…after the manner of men.
For…there is no such thing as either foreknowledge or after knowledge in God.
All…being present to him at once, he does not know one thing before another, or
one thing after another; but sees all…from everlasting to everlasting. As all time,
with everything that exists therein, is present with him at once, so he sees at once,
whatever was, is or will be to the end of time. But observe; we must not think they
are, because he knows them. No; he knows them, because they are.50

Some Important Distinctions

We could have been given eternal life, and even a place in heaven like
the angels, without being made God’s children and joint heirs with Christ
of all the inheritance He has in the Father. But God, in His infinite love and
grace, predestined believers to be part of His family—His very own
children, who are called “unto his eternal glory by Christ Jesus” (1 Peter
5:10). As John Wesley said, “God decrees, from everlasting to everlasting,
that all who believe in the Son of his love, shall be conformed to his
image....”51
Salvation is clearly distinct from the blessings that accompany it—but
Calvin had to make them one and the same or his cause was lost.
Opposing this error, and echoing so many other biblical scholars, Andrew
Telford wrote, “Nowhere in the Bible is Election connected with the
salvation or the damnation of a human soul.... It has to do with service. It
is God’s elect who serve Him.”52 Sadly, in trying to make Scripture fit his
theory, Calvin seems to have fallen deeply into error, once again relying
upon Augustine:
It is wisely observed by Augustine, that in the very head of the Church we have a
bright mirror of free election…viz. that he [Christ] did not become the Son of God
by living righteously, but was freely presented with this great honour, that he
might afterwards make others partakers of his gifts. Should anyone here ask, why
others are not what he was…if they are bent on depriving God of the free right of
electing [to salvation] and reprobating [predestining to damnation], let them at
the same time take away what has been given to Christ.53

Calvin seems to be denying the eternal Sonship of Christ and His

eternal equality and oneness with the Father! He says that Christ became
the Son of God, being “freely presented with this great honour....” Those
who attempt to support Calvin often quote Psalm 2:7, as well as its
quotation in Hebrews 1:5 and 5:5: “Thou art my Son; this day have I
begotten thee.” They claim this refers to a time when “Christ became the
Son of God.” When might that have been? It must have been in eternity
past, because Christ was clearly the Son of God before He was born into
the world: “and what is his son’s name, if thou canst tell” (Proverbs 30:4)?
But there is no time in eternity—certainly nothing that could be called
“this day.” Time began with creation of the universe (Genesis 1:1).
Furthermore, Christ, who is “the same yesterday, today and forever”
(Hebrews 13:8), must therefore eternally be the Son of God. There was
no point in eternity when “Christ became the Son of God” as Calvin
alleges.
Is there a contradiction in Scripture? Of course not. Psalm 2:7 is not
referring to Christ’s becoming the Son of God at all. That never happened.
He always is the Son of God. Paul tells us that “this day have I begotten
thee” refers to Christ’s resurrection: “God hath fulfilled the same unto us
their children, in that he hath raised up Jesus again; as it is also written in
the second psalm, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee” (Acts
13:33). This agrees with His being called “the firstborn from the dead”
(Colossians 1:18). Calvin was simply wrong on this point as on so many
others.
Christ’s alleged “election” to this honor apart from “living righteously”
(i.e., without any merit) is then used by Calvin to establish the alleged
election of humans to salvation apart from their worth or works. The
comparison borders on blasphemy. Christ is the I AM from all eternity,
one with the Father; and because of who He is it was He alone who could
redeem us. Throughout the Old Testament, Yahweh, the God of Israel and
great I AM, repeatedly says, “I, even I, am the LORD; and beside me there is
no Saviour” (Isaiah 43:11 and many others). Jesus declares, “Before
Abraham was, I am” (John 8:58).
Ridicule and “Mystery”
One of the sad features of Calvin’s Institutes is the demeaning
language he continually employs (much like Luther) to vilify all who
disagree with him: “Hence it is, that in the present day so many dogs tear
this doctrine [predestination] with envenomed teeth...assail it with their
bark.... Since some feeling of shame restrains them from daring to belch
forth their blasphemies against heaven, that they may give the freer vent
to their rage, they pretend to pick a quarrel with us...this doctrine, which
perverse men undeservedly assail because it is sometimes wickedly
abused.... The profane make such a bluster with their foolish
puerilities,”54 and so forth, page after page.
Beneath Calvin’s own bluster there is often little substance to his
arguments, which he can support only by abusing Scripture. His obvious
misunderstanding of opposing views, and the weak and unbiblical reasons
Calvin adduces for rejecting foreknowledge as the basis of predestination,
are reinforced with much ridicule:
We, indeed, ascribe both prescience and predestination to God; but we say that it
is absurd to make the latter subordinate to the former....55 Others, who are
neither versed in Scripture, nor entitled to any weight, assail sound doctrine with a
petulance and improbity which it is impossible to tolerate... They ought at least to
be restrained by feelings of awe from talking so confidently of this sublime
mystery.56

The fact that foreknowledge is the reason for predestination, as

Scripture declares, does not make the latter subordinate to the former.
Both are among the many infinite qualities and abilities unique to God
alone, none of which is either independent of or subordinate to any
other. All of God’s qualities are exercised in perfect harmony with each
other. Thus, Calvin’s argument entirely misses the point. And here, again,
he pleads “mystery” when all else fails him.
What about 2 Thessalonians 2:13?
Calvinists often cite 2 Thessalonians 2:13 as proof of their position:
“God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through
sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth.” Being “chosen to
salvation,” however, does not mean that one has been predestined for
heaven. Numerous scriptures force us to conclude that all mankind have
been “chosen to salvation” by the God who would “have all men to be
saved...” (1 Timothy 2:4), who is “the savior of all men, specially of those
that believe” (4:10), and whose Son “gave himself a ransom for all” (2:6).
If all have been chosen to salvation, why are all not saved? Christ said
to His disciples, “Have not I chosen you twelve, and one of you is a devil?
He spake of Judas...that should betray him...” (John 6:70-71). Judas was
one of those chosen to be a disciple, but through his own choice he did
not fulfill that calling and is now in hell.
God said to Israel, “The LORD thy God hath chosen thee to be a special
people unto himself...” (Deuteronomy 7:6). That “choosing” did not
automatically assure that all Israel would live the part. Unfortunately,
Israel as a whole did not fulfill that calling but went into sin, and God had
to cast her out of the land.
From these and other scriptures, it is clear that being “chosen” to
salvation does not bring salvation: one must still believe the gospel in
order to be saved. That fact is further made clear by the rest of the verse:
“through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth.” Though
“chosen to salvation,” the means of salvation is not the choosing by God
but the individual’s “belief of the truth.”

1. Herbert Lockyer, All the Doctrines of the Bible (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1964), 153.
2. H. A. Ironside, Full Assurance (Chicago: Moody Press, 1937), 93–94.
3. Edward Maslin Hulme, The Renaissance, the Protestant Reformation, and the Catholic
Revolution (New York: The Century Company, 1920), 299.
4. John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, trans. Henry Beveridge (Grand Rapids,
MI: Wm. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1998 ed.), III: xxiii, 5.
5. Edwin H. Palmer, foreword to the five points of calvinism (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books,
enlarged ed., 20th prtg. 1980).
6. John H. Leith, Introduction to the Reformed Tradition (Atlanta, GA: John Knox Press, rev.
ed. 1981), 103.
7. Arthur W. Pink, The Sovereignty of God (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 2nd prtg.
1986), 52.
8. Calvin, Institutes, III: xxi, 5.
 9. Ibid., xxiii, 1,4.
10. Laurence M. Vance, The Other Side of Calvinism (Pensacola, FL: Vance Publications, rev.
ed. 1999), 248.
11. Gordon H. Clark, Predestination (Philipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing
Co., 1987), 181.
12. Arthur C. Custance, The Sovereignty of Grace (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and
Reformed Publishing Co., 1979), 7.
13. Numbers 16:5; 1 Kings 19:18, Psalms 65:4; 80:18–19; 110:3; Proverbs 16:1; Isaiah 26:12;
Jeremiah 10:23; 31:18–19; 50:30; Lamentations 5:21.
14. Loraine Boettner, The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian
and Reformed Publishing Co., 1932), 346.
15. “Five Common Questions on the Doctrine of Election Simply and Clearly Answered,” The
Baptist Examiner, November 20, 1993, 5; cited in Vance, Other Side, 248.
16. Alfred S. Geden, Comparative Religion (London: Society for Promoting Christian
Knowledge, 1917), 102–103.
17. John Horsch, History of Christianity (John Horsch, 1903), 104–105.
18. R. C. Sproul, Jr., Almighty Over All (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1999), 54.
19. Henry C. Sheldon, History of Christian Doctrine (New York: Harper and Bros., 2nd ed.,
1895), II: 163.
20. Palmer, five points, 24–25.
21. A. W. Harrison, Arminianism (London: Duckworth, 1937), 189.
22. Jennifer L. Bayne and Sarah E. Hinlicky, “Free to be Creatures Again: How predestination
descended like a dove on two unsuspecting seminarians, and why they are so grateful,”
Christianity Today, October 23, 2000, 38–44.
23. Paul K. Jewett, Election and Predestination (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm B. Eerdmans
Publishing Co., 1985 ed.), 5.
24. Boettner, Reformed, 365.
25. Horsch, History of Christianity.
26. Calvin, Institutes, III: xxiii, 1.
27. Boettner, Reformed, 104.
28. Michael Scott Horton, Putting Amazing Back Into Grace (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson
Publishers, 1991), 96.
29. John Piper and Pastoral Staff, “TULIP: What We Believe about the Five Points of
Calvinism: Position Paper of the Pastoral Staff ” (Minnepolis, MN: Desiring God Ministries,
1997), 3.
30. Ibid., 27–28.
31. John L. Dagg, Manual of Theology and Church Order (Harrisburg, VA: Sprinkle
 Publications, 1982), 309.
32. Piper and Staff, “TULIP,” 19.
33. John F. MacArthur, Jr., Faith Works: The Gospel According to the Apostles (Dallas, TX:
Word Publishing, 1993), 64–67.
34. Vance, Other Side, 522.
35. John MacArthur Jr., Saved Without A Doubt—MacArthur Study Series (Colorado Springs:
Chariot Victor Books, 1992), 58.
36. David N. Steele and Curtis C. Thomas, The Five Points of Calvinism (Phillipsburg, NJ:
Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co, 1963), 16.
37. Charles Haddon Spurgeon, The Treasury of the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI:
Zondervan, 1950), II: 72.
38. Piper and Staff, “TULIP”.
39. S. Raymond Cox, “What Caused God To Choose His People?” (self-published paper,
1980), 3.
40. MacArthur, Saved, 59.
41. Piper and Staff, “TULIP,” 22.
42. Dave Breese, “The Five Points of Calvinism” (self-published paper, n. d.).
43. Herschel H. Hobbs, Fundamentals of our Faith (Nashville: Broadman, 1960), 94–99.
44. Robert M. Zins, “A Believer’s Guide to 2nd Peter 3:9” (self-published monograph, n. d.),
2–3.
45. Piper and Staff, “TULIP,” 22.
46. Charles Haddon Spurgeon, The Best Bread: Sermons Preached in 1887 (New York: Funk
and Wagnalls, 1891), 109.
47. Steven R. Houck, “God’s Sovereignty In Salvation” (The Evangelism Committee,
Protestant Reformed Church, South Holland, IL, n. d.), 10.
48. Marvin R. Vincent, Word Studies in the New Testament (New York: Charles Scribner’s
Sons, 1924), IV: 16.
49. Calvin, Institutes, III: xxii, 2.
50. John Wesley, Sermons on Several Occasions (New York: J. Emory and B. Waugh, for the
Methodist Episcopal Church at the Conference Office, 14 Crosby Street, 1831), II: 39.
51. Ibid.
52. Andrew Telford, Subjects of Sovereignty (Harvest Time Ministries, 1980), 55–56.
53. Calvin, Institutes, III: xxii, 1.
54. Ibid., I: xvii, 2,3.
55. Ibid., III: xxi, 5.
56. Ibid., xxii, 1.
18—Limited Atonement
THE “L” IN TULIP represents one more integral theory in Calvin’s
scheme of salvation: “the doctrine which limits the atonement to...the
elect.”1 This concept follows directly from the limitation Calvinists place
upon God’s love in spite of the fact that it, like every facet of His Being, is
infinite. One of their prominent apologists declares, “The Bible teaches
again and again that God does not love all people with the same
love...‘loved by God’ is not applied to the world but only to the saints...
(Romans 1:7).”2
Same love? But love is love—and “love…is kind” (1 Corinthians 13:4).
Calvin himself declared, “All are not created on equal terms, but some are
preordained to eternal life, others to eternal damnation....”3 Is it loving or
kind to “preordain to…eternal damnation”? Again we ask, What Love Is
This?
A. A. Hodge confesses: “If they [critics] could prove that the love which
prompted God to give his Son to die, as a sin offering...had for its objects
all men...that Christ actually sacrificed his life with the purpose of saving
all...on the condition of faith, then...the central principle of Arminianism is
true [and Calvinism is false]....”4 Boettner explained further:
The Reformed Faith has held to the existence of an eternal, divine decree which,
antecedently to any difference or desert in men themselves separates the human
race into two portions and ordains one to everlasting life and the other to
everlasting death.... Thus predestined and foreordained...their number is so
certain and definite that it cannot be either increased or decreased.5

We protest that this doctrine is an outrageous misrepresentation of

God. The God-given conscience of every person, saved and unsaved,
recoils at the thought of creating beings simply in order to predestine
them to eternal torment! Tragically, Calvinism forces its adherents to
reject the normal human compassion that is otherwise held in common
with all mankind.
Carson draws the line at Limited Atonement, arguing that this label “is
singularly unfortunate for two reasons. First, it is a defensive, restrictive
expression: here is atonement, and then someone wants to limit it. The
notion of limiting something as glorious as the Atonement is intrinsically
offensive. Second, even when inspected more coolly, ‘limited atonement’
is objectively misleading. Every view of the Atonement ‘limits’ it in some
way, save for the unqualified universalist.”6
His last sentence is a common Calvinist error—which accuses even
those who say Christ died for all—of limiting the efficacy of the
atonement because only those who believe are saved. On the contrary,
the atonement is not limited by some rejecting Christ’s sacrifice on their
behalf. The inheritance left by the deceased is not reduced in value
because some heirs refuse their share.
Honoring God’s Love Is Heresy?
To the Calvinist, as Stanley Gower, a member of the Westminster
Assembly, declared, there is no greater heresy than the suggestion that
“God loveth all alike, Cain as well as Abel, Judas as the rest of the
apostles.”7 Thus one must explain away that verse familiar to every
Sunday-school child, “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only
begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but
have everlasting life” (John 3:16). For Calvinism to stand, this verse (and
many others expressing the same truth) cannot mean what the words
seem to say: “world” and “whosoever” cannot signify all mankind but
only the elect. Thus Calvinist children mean something else if ever they
sing, “Jesus loves the little children, all the children of the world….” He
only loves some of the children of the world!
Sproul writes, “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).”8 John Owen boldly states, “That the world
here cannot signify all that ever were or should be, is as manifest as if it
were written with the beams of the sun....”9 How odd, then, that this
bright sun is visible only to Calvinists—and that they disagree with one
another on this key doctrine.
John MacArthur defends “The Love of God to Humanity.”10 He quotes
Calvin that “the Father loves the human race,”11 and that in John 3:16,
God “useth the universal note [world] both that He may invite all men in
general unto the participation of life, and that He may cut off all excuse
from unbelievers.”12 But how can God invite “unto the participation of
life” those whom He has predestined to eternal death in the Lake of Fire
—and how can God “cut off all excuse from unbelievers,” if Christ didn’t
die for them, and they were predestined to eternal torment from a past
eternity? This is double talk!
MacArthur uses “humanity” in the generic sense, attempting thereby
to deny God’s love for every individual. Calvinists insist that God has a
different kind of love for the elect than for the non-elect.13 But love is
love—and love of no kind predestines anyone to eternal torment who
could be saved.
Calvinism’s limitation upon the atonement of Christ ignores Old
Testament types of the Cross, undermines the gospel, and limits God’s
boundless love. Owen, “after a more than seven years’ serious inquiry…
into the mind of God about these things...” asked earnestly, “To what
purpose serves then general ransom [i.e., the alleged “heresy” that Christ
loves all and died for all], but only to assert that Almighty God would have
the precious blood of his dear Son poured out for innumerable souls
whom he will not have to share in any drop thereof, and so, in respect of
them, to be spilt in vain, or else to be shed for them only that they might
be the deeper damned?”14
 But it is Calvinism’s predestination to damnation that creates this
contradiction. Notice Owen’s phrase, “whom he will not have to share in
any drop thereof....” Of course it would be senseless for Christ to die for
any whom God had determined to exclude from salvation. God did not
exclude anyone. It is man who has rejected the salvation Christ provided
for all.
No less sincere and earnestly concerned for truth, H. A. Ironside
expressed the opposing common evangelical understanding in contrast to
Calvinism’s limited atonement for only a select number:
No matter how far they [any sinners] have drifted from God; no matter what their
sins may be, they do not have to peer into the book of the divine decrees in order
to find out whether or not they are of the chosen or the elect. If they come in all
their sin and guilt, confessing their iniquities and trusting in Christ, then they may
have the assurance from His Word that they are saved. It has been well said that
the “Whosoever wills are the elect, and the whosoever won’ts are the non-
elect.”15

Calvinists, however, firmly follow Calvin, who said of God, “for, (as he
hates sin) he can only love those whom he justifies [i.e., the elect].”16
Gerstner argues that if John 3:16 “is supposed to teach that God so loved
everyone in the world that He gave His only son to provide them an
opportunity to be saved by faith...such love on God’s part...would be a
refinement of cruelty…. Offering a gift of life to a spiritual corpse, a
brilliant sunset to a blind man, and a reward to a legless cripple if only he
will come and get it, are horrible mockeries.”17
We agree that it would be cruel mockery to offer salvation to those
whom God had no intention of saving and would not help to respond to
the offer. But who says that all mankind cannot respond, if they so
desire? Not the Bible, which offers salvation to “whosoever will,” but
Calvinism, which effectively changes “whosoever” into “elect”! So this
“cruelty” is imposed by Calvinism itself, beginning with the very first of its
five points. Yet “moderates,” blaming all on “hyper-Calvinists,” claim to
believe that God sincerely loves and offers salvation to all, while in the
same breath they say Christ did not die for all.18
By defining “total depravity” as “total inability,” Calvinism says that
none can respond to the gospel, not even the elect, until they have been
sovereignly regenerated. Yet Christ commanded the gospel to be
preached to everyone—and no one warns the non-elect that it isn’t for
them. Of course, how could they be warned, since no one knows who
they are? So Christ commanded “cruelty and mockery”? And the Calvinist
engages in it each time he preaches the gospel!
Why preach salvation to those already predestined to eternal
damnation? “We must,” says the Calvinist, “because no one knows who
are the elect.” So there is no escaping the fact that if Calvinism is true,
then it is a cruel mockery to preach the gospel to anyone except the elect
—but there is no way to identify them.
Would it lessen the non-elect’s pain for the evangelist to explain, “This
good news is only for the elect, so disregard it if you are not among
them”? No, that would only add to the confusion. The cruelty is inherent
in Calvinism’s misrepresentation of God and His gospel.
The Doctrine Clearly Stated
Where does Scripture say that Christ’s blood cannot be shed for those
who would not benefit thereby? Nowhere. But this fiction is foundational
to the doctrine of Limited Atonement: “that the cross of Christ provides a
sure, secure and real salvation for everyone God intended it to save and
for them alone.”19 Homer Hoeksema confesses the dire consequences of
this belief, “If Christ died for the elect only, then there are no possible
benefits in that death of Christ for anyone else….”20 Steele and Thomas
insist,
Christ’s redeeming work was intended to save the elect only and actually secured
salvation for…certain specified sinners.... The gift of faith is infallibly applied by the
 Spirit to all for whom Christ died, thereby guaranteeing their salvation.21

This doctrine, however, is nowhere stated in the entire Bible in plain

words, but is required by the rest of TULIP. Michael Horton argues, “If
Jesus died for every person, but not every person is saved, His death did
not actually save anybody.... If Christ died for people who will be in hell,
His efforts cannot accurately be called a ‘saving work’ [and] there is no
real saving power in the blood. Rather, the power would seem to be in
the will of the creature.”22
On the contrary, man’s will has no power but can only accept or reject
the salvation God offers in the gospel. The Calvinist complaint is like
saying that the $1 million, which a father deposits in a bank in his
estranged son’s name, is of no value unless the son accepts it. Obviously,
the sinner’s acceptance of Christ no more gives the blood of Christ saving
power than the son’s acceptance of the $1 million would give it monetary
value.
With no clear statement in all of Scripture to support this dogma, it
must be defended by rationalizations: “If Christ died for all men and all
men are not saved, the cross of Christ is of no effect. Calvary is a sham.”23
Of course, that doesn’t follow. Otherwise, giving the Ten Commandments
was a sham, because all men do not keep them.
Even Sproul acknowledges that “the value of Christ’s atonement is
sufficient to cover the sins of the world....”24 It would have to be, because
His perfect sacrifice must be of infinite value. Although “the cross is to
them that perish foolishness” (1 Corinthians 1:18), it is not a sham but
saves all who believe! As one of the most respected Bible teachers of
recent years said, “The Bible teaches most strongly the doctrine of
unlimited atonement.... The doctrine of limited atonement is specifically
denied in Scripture....”25
But Calvinists persist: “Only Calvinism with its effective atonement
limits man’s power and exalts God’s power and glory.”26 On the contrary,
God offers salvation on His terms. That multitudes reject His offer only
sends them to hell—hardly anything of which they could boast! Those
who reject Christ are no more “in charge” than the multitudes who daily
break God’s commandments. Were Adam and Eve “in charge” when they
rebelled? Was Satan? Of course not!
Did their rebellion give “power” to Satan, and to Adam and Eve? Of
course not! Nor did it (any more than man’s continued rebellion today)
take anything away, in even the slightest degree, from either God’s power
or His glory. The Calvinist is driven to such fallacious and unbiblical
arguments in his desperation to defend an indefensible dogma.
While some who call themselves Calvinists reject Limited Atonement,
it is irrational to do so while accepting the other four points. A leading
Calvinist author writes: “It is in this truth of limited atonement that the
doctrine of sovereign election (and, in fact, sovereign predestination with
its two aspects of election and reprobation), comes into focus.”27 In other
words, the whole Calvinistic system collapses if Limited Atonement is not
biblical, which indeed it is not.
Key, Yet Controversial, Even Among Calvinists
Limited Atonement is the one point that even Calvinists find difficult to
accept. Certainly Spurgeon, at times, contradicted that which at other
times he affirmed.
The book of Hebrews makes it clear that the Levitical system God gave
to Israel for dealing with sin, involving the tabernacle, temple, priests and
offerings, was “a figure for the time then present” (Hebrews 9:9), which
pointed to the sacrifice of Christ that was to come. Indisputably, the Old
Testament provision for sin and salvation was for all Israel, not for a
special elect among them. Disobedience and unbelief were the only
barriers separating every Israelite from God’s grace. For example: “And
the priests...made reconciliation...upon the altar...for all Israel...the burnt
offering and the sin offering...for all Israel” (2 Chronicles 29:24); “offered
burnt offerings...for all Israel” (Ezra 8:35); “the law of Moses... which I
commanded...for all Israel, with the statutes and judgments” (Malachi
4:4), etc.
Spurgeon was accused of “Arminianism” for urging all unsaved to
come to Christ, which he habitually did with great earnestness, thus
contradicting Calvinism’s claim that the number of those for whom Christ
died was fixed and limited. Nor did he refrain from criticizing those whom
he classified as hyper-Calvinists for their rejection of what was then called
“duty-faith,” meaning that it was the duty of all men to repent and
believe the gospel.
It was over his persistent preaching of this message, in spite of much
criticism, that the “duty-faith controversy” raged among “particular
Baptists” in England. Spurgeon declared: “I cannot imagine a more ready
instrument in the hands of Satan for the ruin of souls than a minister who
tells sinners that it is not their duty to repent of their sins or to believe in
Christ, and who has the arrogance to call himself a gospel minister, while
he teaches that God hates some men infinitely and unchangeably for no
reason whatever but simply because he chooses to do so.”28
Spurgeon is criticizing the very heart of Calvinism—no wonder there
was a furor! Many Calvinists of his day considered such statements to be
a denial of Limited Atonement—which indeed they are. For pointing this
out, I have been accused of misquoting and misrepresenting Spurgeon.
Some consider the doctrine of Limited Atonement to be “the Achilles
Heel of Calvinism.”29 On the other hand, some Calvinists consider it to be
their strongest point, “the hardest one of the ‘Five Points of Calvinism’ for
Arminians to cope with.”30 Most admit that it follows necessarily from
Calvinism’s view of predestination/reprobation: “If God has elected some
and not others to eternal life, then plainly the primary purpose of Christ’s
work was to redeem the elect.”31
 We agree that it would be unreasonable for Christ to die for those
whom God had from eternity past predestined to eternal torment, if
there were such. But that problem is created by Calvinism’s five points.
“Give up this point [Calvinist election],” says another Calvinist, “and we
have lost the battle on the sovereignty of God in salvation.”32
The Calvinist recognizes that Unconditional Election and Limited
Atonement “must stand or fall together. We cannot logically accept one
and reject the other.”33 But the Bible repeatedly declares that Christ died
for all mankind, that the gospel is offered and equally available to all, and
that God wants all to be saved. Definitions of words must be changed to
deny this clear biblical teaching.
Even John MacArthur acknowledges that God desires all men to be
saved—but then he says that God inexplicably doesn’t elect and
predestine to salvation multitudes of those He desires to be saved. Odd,
indeed, considering the emphasis Calvinists put on sovereignty, that God
doesn’t sovereignly fulfill His own desire!34
Hodges notes that the God of Limited Atonement “is hardly the God of
love whom we meet in the Bible. The deity of the determinist creates
human beings for whom he has no direct love, and who have no free will,
and thus they are created solely for…everlasting torment. Christ’s death
in no way affects them, and so they stand totally outside of any
redemptive provision.” He goes on to argue:
The cruelty implicit in such a view is obvious to any observer outside of those who
have been brought up in, or have bought into, this kind of theology. Despite
specious arguments addressed to every text alleged against such theology,
determinists of this type are bereft of true biblical support. It is absurd, for
example, to claim (as they sometimes do) that when the Bible says, “God so loved
the world,” it means only “the world of the elect.”35

In considering the scriptures bearing on this subject, it becomes clear

that the only way Limited Atonement can be defended is to assign,
arbitrarily, a restrictive Calvinist meaning to key words. Palmer boldly
declares:
It was just because God so loved the world of elect sinners that He sent His only
begotten Son that the world [i.e., the elect by Calvinist definition] might be saved
through Him (John 3:16–17). In this passage, “world” does not mean every single
person, reprobate as well as elect, but the whole world in the sense of people
[elected] from every tribe and nation....36

What evidence is there, either within this passage and its context or
anywhere else in Scripture, that “world” has this restrictive Calvinist
meaning? Palmer offers none, nor is there any.
Why Aren’t All Men Saved?
In maintaining Limited Atonement, the Calvinist reasons, “If Christ paid
the debt of sin, has saved, ransomed, given His life for all men, then all
men will be saved.”37 In the same vein, Palmer writes, “But if the death of
Jesus is what the Bible says it is—a substitutionary sacrifice for
sins...whereby the sinner is really reconciled to God—then, obviously, it
cannot be for every man...for then everybody would be saved, and
obviously they are not.”38
In a letter to John Wesley, George Whitefield reasoned, “You cannot
make good the assertion ‘that Christ died for them that perish,’ without
holding...‘that all the damned souls would hereafter be brought out of
hell....’”39 This argument, however, rests upon the unbiblical theory that
Christ’s death immediately saved all of the elect, without any faith,
understanding, or acceptance on their part. Contradicting many fellow
Calvinists, Pink admitted, “A Saviour provided is not sufficient: he must be
received. There must be ‘faith in His blood’ (Romans 3:25) and faith is a
personal thing. I must exercise faith.”40
Though criticized by other Calvinists as an extremist on this point, Pink
was right. That Christ “taste[d] death for every man” (Hebrews 2:9) does
not automatically mean that all are delivered from eternal death, the
penalty for sin. Nowhere does the Bible say so. Sinners are invited and
urged to come to Christ and to believe on Him. Such is the sinner’s
responsibility—something he “must…do to be saved” (Acts 16:30).
That Christ died for our sins is the message preached in the gospel. It
must, however, be believed to be of benefit to a sinner. Christ’s death,
though offered for “all men,” is only efficacious for those who believe: He
is “the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe” (1 Timothy
4:10). Vance points out the obvious problem if the death of Christ
automatically procures salvation for those for whom He died:
But if the nature of the atonement was such that it actually in and of itself
provided salvation for those for whom it was intended, then the “elect” could
never have been born “dead in trespasses and sins” (Ephesians 2:1). And
consequently, how could men who were saved, redeemed, reconciled, and
justified be “by nature children of wrath” (Ephesians 2:3)...?41

The Passover, which Pink acknowledges as “one of the most striking

and blessed foreshadowments of the Cross-work of Christ to be found
anywhere in the Old Testament, is a clear example of the principle that
the Atonement and its application are to be distinguished. The blood of
the slain Passover lamb (Exodus 12:6,21) became efficacious only after it
was applied to the doorpost per instructions (Exodus 12:7,22).... The
death of the lamb saved no one: the blood had to be applied.”42 And so it
is with Christ’s death.
Calvinism bluntly blames God: “Because God has loved certain ones
and not all, because He has sovereignly and immutably determined that
these particular ones will be saved, He sent His Son to die for them, to
save them, and not all the world.”43 Thus, all men are not saved because
God doesn’t want them to be and has predestined multitudes to suffer
eternally.
According to the Bible, however, all are not saved because they (the
lost) refuse to believe on Christ. Paul writes that salvation comes “unto
all...that believe...for all have sinned” (Romans 3:22–23). Surely the “all
have sinned” means all mankind. Thus the “all...that believe” must mean
that all mankind may believe on Christ, if they will.
Salvation Is for All
Here are some of the many verses (with key words and phrases
italicized) that declare that God (exactly as we would expect of the One
who is love and the Father of mercies) loves everyone with infinite love
and desires that all should be saved. He does not want anyone to perish
and has made the death of Christ propitiatory for the sins of all mankind if
they will only believe on Him:

• All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one
to his own way; and the Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us
all. (Isaiah 53:6) [Surely the “all” who went astray are the same
“all” (i.e., all Israel and all mankind) whose iniquity was laid
upon Christ.]

• Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the
world.” (John 1:29) [Just as the Old Testament sacrifices were
offered for all Israel and not for a select group of Israelites, so
the fulfillment thereof in Christ’s sacrifice as the Lamb of God
was offered for the whole world of mankind and not for a
limited “elect.”]

• And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so

must the Son of man be lifted up: that whosoever believeth in
him should not perish, but have eternal life. For God so loved
the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever
believeth in him should not perish.... [F]or God sent not his Son
into the world to condemn the world; but that the world
through him might be saved. He that believeth on him is not
condemned.... He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting
 life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life.... (John
3:14–18, 36) [Healing via the upraised serpent of brass, which
Christ said pictured His being lifted up on the Cross, was for all
who would look in faith.]

• Remember ye the law of Moses…which I commanded…for all

Israel.... (Malachi 4:4) [The law, with its accompanying
sacrifices, was for all Israel—and the fulfillment in Christ is for
all mankind.]

• If any man thirst, let him come unto me, and drink.…(John
7:37)

• For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the

power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the
Jew first, and also to the Greek. (Romans 1:16)

• Christ died for the ungodly. (Romans 5:6) [All are ungodly, not
only the elect.]

• But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the
promise by faith...might be given to them that believe.
(Galatians 3:22)

• For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life
through Jesus Christ our Lord. (Romans 6:23)

• Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners. (1 Timothy

1:15) [Surely the elect are not the only sinners.]

• Who will have all men to be saved, and to come to the

knowledge of the truth. (1 Timothy 2:4)

• Who gave himself a ransom for all.... (1 Timothy 2:6)

 • We trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men,
specially of those that believe. (1 Timothy 4:10)

• That he by the grace of God should taste death for every man.
(Hebrews 2:9)

• The Lord is...not willing that any should perish, but that all
should come to repentance. (2 Peter 3:9)

• If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our

sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.... And if any
man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the
righteous: And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for
ours only; but also for the sins of the whole world. (1 John 1:9–
2:2)

• The Father sent the Son to be the Saviour of the world. (1 John
4:14)
To take these many (and the many others similar) clear declarations
that salvation is for all, for the world, for whosoever, for all Israel, for any
man, for every one that believeth, etc., and dare to say that only an elect
group is in mind is to deliberately change God’s Word!
Do only the elect go astray like lost sheep? Do only the elect thirst?
Are only the elect ungodly and sinners? Are only the elect “under sin”?
Obviously not. As surely as all men are sinners and have, like all of Israel,
gone astray like lost sheep, so surely were the sins of all men laid upon
Christ, and salvation is available to all through faith in Him.
These verses, and many more like them, clearly state in unambiguous
language that Christ was sent to be “the Saviour of the world,” that His
death was “a ransom for all” and that He is therefore “the Saviour of all
men” who will but believe. John Owen attempts to counter such
scriptures and to support Limited Atonement with the following
commentary upon 1 Timothy 1:15, “Christ Jesus came into the world to
save sinners”:
Now, if you will ask who these sinners are towards whom he hath this gracious
intent and purpose, himself tells you, Matthew 20:28, that he came to “give his life
a ransom for many;” in other places called us believers distinguished from the
world: for he “gave himself for our sins, that he might deliver us from this present
evil world...” Galatians 1:4.... Ephesians 5:25–27, “He loved the church, and gave
himself for it....” Titus 2:14, “He gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from
all iniquity...” for through him “we have access into the grace wherein we stand,”
Romans 5:2, etc.44

An Unwarranted Assumption
Owen was brilliant, yet his argument is fallacious. His desire to defend
Calvinism seemingly blinded him to the Scriptures and to simple reason.
Obviously, the multitude of verses that state clearly that God loves all and
is merciful to all and that Christ died for all are not nullified by other
verses declaring that Christ died for the church, that His death was a
ransom for many, or the assurance that He died for us, etc. These
passages do not say that Christ died only for many sinners, only for the
church, only for us, etc. By that interpretation, statements such as, “For if
through the offense of one [Adam] many be dead...by one man’s
disobedience many were made sinners” (Romans 5:15, 19), etc., would
indicate that only a limited number were made sinners and died through
Adam’s disobedience.
Of course, the apostles, writing to believers, would remind them that
Christ died for them—but that statement cannot void the many clear
declarations that He died for all. Yet this same argument is offered
repeatedly by Calvinists to this day. Piper quotes the same inapplicable
verses in which it is said that Christ was “a ransom for many,” that He
“bare the sin of many,” and that He “loved the church and gave himself
for her,” etc. as “proof” that Christ’s death was not propitiatory for all.45
 By such reasoning, Paul wouldn’t have been able to use “you,” “ye,”
etc., in writing to the Corinthians because that would mean the benefits
of Christ’s death and resurrection were only for them. By the same
argument, for David to say, “The LORD is my shepherd...” (Psalm 23:1)
would mean that this was true only for David. Or when Israel’s prophets
wrote, “O God of Israel, the Saviour...their redeemer is strong, the LORD of
hosts is his name...” (Isaiah 45:15; Jeremiah 50:34), it meant that God was
the God and redeemer only of Israel.
Equally absurd, for Paul to say “the Son of God who loved me”
(Galatians 2:20) would mean that Christ loved only Paul. Other arguments
that Calvinists employ are equally unreasonable. Consider the following
attempt by John Piper and his pastoral staff to explain away 1 Timothy
4:10:
Christ’s death so clearly demonstrates God’s just abhorrence of sin that he is free
to treat the world with mercy without compromising his righteousness. In this
sense Christ is the savior of all men. But he is especially the Savior of those who
believe. He did not die for all men in the same sense.... The death of Christ actually
saves from all evil those for whom Christ died “especially.”46 [Emphasis in original]

Sense or Nonsense?
Can anyone make sense of “Christ did not die for all men in the same
sense,” yet He is the savior of all men “in this sense”? What is this sense?
Because Christ’s death “demonstrates God’s just abhorrence of sin...” He
is able to “treat the world with mercy without compromising his
righteousness.” But He doesn’t treat all with mercy, because Christ “did
not die for all men in the same sense....” Neither this sense nor same
sense are defined, so we can’t make any sense out of this nonsense. But it
shows again the lengths to which one must go to defend Calvinism.
One is reminded of Spurgeon’s objection (we’ve quoted it several
times because it so clearly contradicts the Calvinism he otherwise
affirmed) to such attempts to get around the clear words of Scripture. In
commenting upon 1 Timothy 2:4 (contradicting his own defense of
Limited Atonement at other times), he said:
I was reading just now the exposition of [one] who explains the text so as to
explain it away [as] if it read “Who will not have all men to be saved….” [In fact,]
the passage should run thus—“whose wish it is that all men should be saved….” As
it is my wish…as it is your wish…so it is God’s wish that all men should be saved;
for, assuredly, he is not less benevolent than we are.47

Yet Spurgeon contradicted himself again in saying that God is able to

save all He desires to save. Since all are not saved, God’s wish that all men
should be saved cannot be sincere. Consequently, He is less benevolent
than Spurgeon, who desired all men to be saved—and surely less
benevolent than Paul, who was willing to be “accursed from Christ” if that
would save his brethren the Jews (Romans 9:1–5). How could God desire
all men to be saved, be able to save all He desires to save, yet all are not
saved?
As we have just seen, John MacArthur, Jr. (like Spurgeon) tries to
escape the obvious contradiction by saying that God has a “will of decree”
and a “will of desire.”48 In the process of escaping one contradiction, he
falls into another. How could God, given Calvinism’s extreme view of
sovereignty, fail to decree anything He truly desires? Calvinists boast that
they exegete Scripture. But where in I Timothy 2:4 (or anywhere else) is
there even a hint of “two wills,” one of “decree” and one of “desire” as
Piper and others also teach?
It is the imposition upon Scripture of an unbiblical theory that entraps
the Calvinist in such contradictions. Obviously, the contradiction would
disappear if free will were admitted—but that cannot be allowed,
because it would destroy TULIP.
Boettner declares that “Calvinists hold that in the intention and secret
plan of God, Christ died for the elect only....”49 Otherwise, adds Boettner,
“If Christ’s death was intended to save all men, then we must say that
God was either unable or unwilling to carry out His plans.”50 He forgets
that Christ’s death only benefits those who receive Christ (John 1:12) and
that salvation, being “the gift of God” (Romans 6:23), must be willingly
received. As for men being able to oppose God’s plans, is the evil in the
world God’s plan? Why, then, are we to pray, “Thy will be done, on earth
as it is in heaven”?
Remember Isaiah is speaking to all of Israel when he says, “all we like
sheep have gone astray...” and when he declares that “the iniquity of us
all” would be laid upon the coming Messiah. As surely as all went astray,
so surely did God lay upon Christ the iniquity of all—yet many Israelites
throughout history have not been saved. These and many other
scriptures make it clear that the benefit of Christ’s death, burial, and
resurrection in full payment for the sins of the world is available to be
received by whosoever believes the gospel, while the wrath of God abides
upon all who reject Christ and the salvation genuinely offered to all in
Him.

1. John Murray, Redemption Accomplished and Applied (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm B. Eerdmans
Publishing Co., 1955), 64.
2. Edwin H. Palmer, the five points of calvinism (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, enlarged
ed., 20th prtg. 1999), 44.
3. John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, trans. Henry Beveridge (Grand Rapids,
MI: Wm. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1998 ed.), III: xxi, 5.
4. A. A. Hodge, The Atonement (Memphis, TN: Footstool Publishers, 1987), 348.
5. Loraine Boettner, The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian
and Reformed Publishing Co., 1932), 83–84.
6. D. A. Carson, The Difficult Doctrine of the Love of God (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books,
2000), 73.
7. Stanley Gower, in the first of “Two Attestations” to John Owen, Bk. 1 of The Death of
Death in the Death of Christ (n. p., 1647); in The Works of John Owen, ed. William H.
Goold (Carlisle, PA: The Banner of Truth Trust, 3rd prtg. 1978), X:147.
8. R. C. Sproul, Chosen by God (Carol Stream, IL: Tyndale House Publishers, Inc., 1986),
 207.
9. Gower, in Owen, Works, IV:338.
10. John MacArthur, Jr., The Love of God (Dallas, TX: Word Publishing, 1996), xv 85–86, 99–
124.
11. John Calvin, Commentary on a Harmony of the Evangelists, Matthew, Mark, and Luke,
William Pringle, trans. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1930), 314, cited in MacArthur, Love of
God, 85.
12. MacArthur, Love of God, 195.
13. Ibid., 12–18.
14. Owen, Works, I:149.
15. H. A. Ironside, Timothy, Titus and Philemon (Neptune, NJ: Loizeaux Brothers, Inc., 1990),
55.
16. Calvin, Institutes, III: xi, 11.
17. John H. Gerstner, Wrongly Dividing the Word of Truth: A Critique of Dispensationalism
(Brentwood, TN: Wolgemuth and Hyatt, Publishers, Inc., 1991), 124.
18. MacArthur, Love of God, 106–112.
19. Grover E. Gunn, The Doctrine of Grace (Memphis, TN: Footstool Publications), 1987, 17.
20. Cited in Laurence M. Vance, The Other Side of Calvinism (Pensacola, FL: Vance
Publications, rev. ed. 1999), 423.
21. David N. Steele and Curtis C. Thomas, The Five Points of Calvinism (Phillipsburg, NJ:
Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1963), 17.
22. Michael Scott Horton, Putting Amazing Back Into Grace (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson
Publishers, 1991), 89.
23. Herman Hanko, God’s Everlasting Covenant of Grace (Grandville, MI: Reformed Free
Publishing Association, 1988), 15.
24. R. C. Sproul, Grace Unknown (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1997), 165.
25. Dave Breese, “The Five Points of Calvinism” (self-published paper, n. d.).
26. Leonard J. Coppes, Are Five Points Enough? The Ten Points of Calvinism (Denver CO:
self-published, 1980), 49.
27. Homer Hoeksema, Limited Atonement, 151; cited in Vance, Other Side, 406.
28. C. H. Spurgeon, New Park Street Pulpit (London: Passmore and Alabaster), Vol 6, 28-29;
sermon preached December 11, 1859.
29. Kenneth G. Talbot and W. Gary Crampton, Calvinism, Hyper-Calvinism and Arminianism
(Edmonton, AB: Still Waters Revival Books, 1990), 11.
30. Ibid., 37.
31. Boettner, Reformed, 151.
32. Joseph M. Wilson, “How is the Atonement Limited?” The Baptist Examiner, December 9,
 1989.
33. Boettner, Reformed, 151.
34. John MacArthur, The MacArthur Study Bible (Nashville: Word Publishing, 1997) 1862.
35. Zane C. Hodges, “The New Puritanism, Pt. 3: Michael S. Horton: Holy War With Unholy
Weapons,” Journal of the Grace Evangelical Society, Spring 1994, 7:12, 17–29.
36. Palmer, five points, 44–45.
37. W. J. Seaton, The Five Points of Calvinism (Carlisle, PA: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1970),
15.
38. Palmer, five points, 44.
39. Cited in Vance, Other Side, 423.
40. Arthur W. Pink, Gleanings in Exodus (Chicago: Moody Press, 1981), 84.
41. Vance, Other Side, 427.
42. Pink, Gleanings, 88.
43. Palmer, five points, 50.
44. Owen, Works, 1:157–58.
45. John Piper and Pastoral Staff, “TULIP: What We Believe about the Five Points of
Calvinism: Position Paper of the Pastoral Staff” (Minneapolis, MN: Desiring God Ministries,
1997), 16–17.
46. Ibid., 14–15.
47. C. H. Spurgeon, Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit, vol. 26, “Salvation by Knowing the
Truth,” sermon preached on 1 Timothy 2:3–4, January 16, 1880.
48. John MacArthur, The MacArthur Study Bible (Nashville, TN: Word Publishing, 1997),
1862.
49. Boettner, Reformed, 150.
50. Ibid., 155.
19—Abusing God’s Word
ONE CAN ONLY conclude from Scripture that salvation is available to
everyone in the entire world, Jew or Gentile, who will but believe in Christ
“the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world” (John 1:29).
How could such clear language be denied? Exactly as Palmer does: by
changing the definition of words (“world” becomes “elect,” etc.); and by
rationalizations that at first seem to make sense but fail upon closer
examination. One critic of what little I had written about Calvinism in our
monthly newsletter argued, “If Christ died for all men, why aren’t all men
saved? Is believing necessary to make the blood of Christ efficacious for
redemption? On the contrary, [it is not].”
This is Calvinistic reasoning: Christ must have died only for the elect;
otherwise all would be saved. And the elect don’t even need to believe on
Christ in order to be born again, for they are sovereignly regenerated by
God without any desire or understanding on their part. God simply wills it
so. If man has any choice in the matter at all, Calvinism is refuted. As
Palmer said sarcastically of the non-Calvinist view of the cross, “Christ not
only shed His blood, He also spilled it. He intended to save all, but only
some will be saved. Therefore, some of His blood was wasted: it was
spilled.”1
In the Calvinist scheme, believing the gospel is not the means of one’s
salvation and new birth. It supposedly proves that one is among the elect
and was regenerated by God, and thereafter given the faith to believe.
The same critic quoted above insisted that faith is not a prerequisite for
salvation but “is simply the proof that the blood of Christ has saved a
man.” Piper and his staff argue the same: “We do not think that faith
precedes and causes new birth. Faith is the evidence that God has
begotten us anew.”2 On the contrary, the Bible always puts faith before
salvation—always—so Calvinism has man regenerated before he is saved,
an unbiblical concept to which Spurgeon strongly objected.
Faith Is Essential
The Bible repeatedly says that we are “saved, through faith”
(Ephesians 2:8). Paul told the Philippian jailor, “Believe on the Lord Jesus
Christ, and thou shalt be saved...” (Acts 16:31). In the Greek, “believe” is
always an active verb—something one does, not something done to him.
But the Calvinist insists that, although the natural man can believe
anything else, he is totally unable to believe in Christ. Therefore, God
must regenerate him first and then cause him to believe by giving him the
essential faith—something God supposedly does only for the elect, who
alone He desires to save.
The many verses already quoted, however, some from the lips of
Christ Himself, clearly make believing a condition of the new birth and
salvation, which can only result from faith. The biblical reason all men are
not saved, in spite of Christ having died for all, is that not all believe the
gospel, which alone is “the power of God unto salvation to every one that
believeth” (Romans 1:16). “Whosoever will,” used repeatedly in Scripture,
implies that while all may, many won’t. Consider the following:

• To him give all the prophets witness, that...whosoever

believeth in him shall receive remission of sins. (Acts 10:43)

• For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not

be ashamed. (Romans 10:11)

• For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be
saved. (Romans 10:13)

• Whosoever will, let him take of the water of life freely.

(Revelation 22:17)
 The claim that “whosoever” means only the elect flies in the face of
hundreds of scriptures. Nor can one verse be produced where this
doctrine of Limited Atonement is clearly stated. Surely, such an important
concept would be declared clearly and repeatedly. Yet it is not found once
in clear language.
What About “Double Payment”?
Calvinists reason that for sinners to suffer eternally after Christ had
suffered for them would mean that God was demanding double payment
for their sins. Boettner insists that “Christ died not for an unorderly mass,
but for His people, His Bride, His Church.”3 He argues elsewhere: “For God
to have laid the sins of all men on Christ would mean that as regards the
lost He would be punishing their sins twice, once in Christ, and then again
in them.”4 Another author offers what he considers to be sound
arguments against the possibility that John 3:16 and so many other verses
could really mean what they say:
[If] Jesus died, paying for the sins of all, God cannot legally or justly accuse and
condemn anyone...regardless of whether they hear or accept the gospel, sin
cannot be justly paid for twice.... For God not to pardon a sinner for whom Christ
agonized would be a travesty of justice.... [Then] Jesus will never...“see of the
travail of his soul and be satisfied” (Isaiah 53). Why? Because billions for whom He
agonized, travailed and died, bearing their “sins in his own body on the tree,” will
suffer eternal hell. Jesus paid. They pay again. God is paid twice for one debt.5
(Emphasis in original)

However, as we shall see in the next section, it was impossible for

Christ to die for some sins and not for others. Christ had to die for sin
itself, the sin which “by one man...entered into the world,” and for the
death that as a result “passed upon all men” (Romans 5:12). He had to
pay the penalty owed by all. Christ’s payment for sin cannot be divided up
in order to apply it to individuals. Nor is Christ’s “it is finished!”
automatically credited to the account of anyone who does not
acknowledge his guilt before God, repent, and accept Christ as his Savior.
 As a result of Christ’s death having paid the full penalty, no one will
spend eternity in the Lake of Fire only because of his sins. The doom of
those in hell was sealed by each of them rejecting Christ and the salvation
He obtained and freely offers to all.
Furthermore, it is the sinner, not God, who creates any “double
payment.” God’s justice has been fully satisfied in the death of His Son.
The Father has proved His love by giving His Son, and Christ has proved
His love by dying in the sinner’s place. Therefore, even if double payment
were involved, God could not be charged with injustice—it only occurs
because of the refusal of some to admit their guilt and accept the full
payment Christ made on their behalf.
Some go further and argue that it is a travesty of justice for Christ, an
innocent party, to be punished in the place of the guilty and for the guilty
thereby to go free. In fact, that is not the gospel according to Paul but
according to Barabbas. The latter could say, “Christ died for me, in my
place.” That was true, but Christ’s death in his place had neither an
eternal nor even a moral effect on Barabbas. It merely set that criminal
free to live for self again—and that is not the gospel.
The truth of the gospel was expressed by Paul: “I am crucified with
Christ...[and now] Christ liveth in me” (Galatians 2:20). In fact, all those
who believe in Christ, having given up life as they would have lived it, and
having by faith accepted His death as their own, have been crucified with
Him. Such was not the case with Barabbas even though Christ died in his
place. Those who have not believed in Christ have not accepted His death
as their death and thus will suffer “the second death” eternally
(Revelation 20:14–15).
No one can complain that God created human beings for hell. He
created them all for His glorious presence. Yes, He knew that all men
would sin and come short of His glory, but He had a way whereby He
could be just and yet justify all sinners (Romans 3:22–26) so they could be
forgiven and spend eternity in His presence.
Even before Adam was created and sinned, God had planned
redemption for him and for all his descendants. Anyone who will spend
eternity in the Lake of Fire (Revelation 20:14) has sent himself there by
rejecting the salvation God has provided for him as a free gift of His grace.
God is exonerated. He has made salvation available for all, but He will not
bend His justice to accommodate those who reject Christ. He cannot deny
Himself.
Was “Some” of Christ’s Blood Shed in Vain?
Acceptance of Limited Atonement by many seems to be based upon
the sincere misunderstanding that if Christ’s blood was shed for
multitudes who didn’t believe, some of it would have been shed in vain.
Some Calvinists seem to believe that Christ’s death was potentially
redemptive of the whole world, but that the limiting factor was put upon
it by God himself. Thus Gunn argues, “The cross could save everyone if
God had only intended it to do so.”6 Spurgeon said the same.
It is argued that for anyone for whom Christ died to spend eternity in
the Lake of Fire would not only be double payment and a violation of
justice but would also mean that some of Christ’s blood was needlessly
shed. Sadly, C. H. Spurgeon lent his support on that very point in spite of
his assertion that the value of Christ’s atonement was unlimited:
Some say that all men are Christ’s by purchase. But, beloved, you and I do not
believe in a sham redemption which does not redeem. We do not believe in a
universal redemption which extends even to those who were in hell before the
Savior died, and which includes...unrepentant men. We believe in an effectual
redemption, and can never agree with those who would teach us that Christ’s
blood was shed in vain.7

The fact that Christ died for all, that He “tasted death for every man,”
is the clear teaching of Scripture. To suggest that Christ’s blood would
have been shed in vain if some of those for whom it was shed rejected
Him and spent eternity in the Lake of Fire—or were already in hell—
betrays a basic misunderstanding. Could such a great preacher as
Spurgeon have missed the point here?
Redemption Through His Blood
How much of Christ’s blood did it take to atone for those who will be
in heaven? Obviously, all of it had to be shed to redeem even one person.
There is no way to divide Christ’s blood so that this part was shed for the
redeemed and that part for those who are lost and thus some of it was
shed in vain.
Even if no one believed on Him, Christ proved God’s love, mercy and
grace; He proved the sinfulness of sin, the justice of the penalty and
glorified God in paying that penalty in full for all. Because of Christ’s death
on the cross, God has been fully vindicated in His creation of man and will
be eternally glorified in those in hell. We will deal with that fact in more
depth later.
We do not say that “all men are Christ’s by purchase.” Redemption,
according to the Bible, becomes effectual only if and when a sinner
believes the gospel. No one could escape hell apart from Christ having
paid the full penalty for sin. And the rejection of Christ is one sin for
which, by its very nature, Christ could not pay the penalty. This is the “sin
against the Holy Ghost”—unpardonable in this life or in the life to come—
because the pardon Christ purchased has been rejected. Indeed, that sin
carries a far worse penalty of its own:
Of how much sorer punishment...shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden
under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant,
wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the
Spirit of grace? (Hebrews 10:29)

Here, again, we have a clear statement that the blood of Christ was
not shed for the elect alone. It was shed even for those who despise it
and tread underfoot the Son of God. The same truth is presented by
Peter, that even those who go to destruction have been bought by Christ,
obviously at the price of His blood shed for sin: “But there were false
prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers
among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying
the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction”
(2 Peter 2:1). Yes, false prophets condemned to hell were “bought” by
Christ.
In view of these two scriptures, the Calvinist must either admit that
one who was once saved lost his salvation through turning against Christ
—or that one who “was sanctified” by Christ’s blood and some whom
“the Lord…bought” are not among the elect. Clearly, some for whom
Christ’s blood was shed will be lost. Thus the Calvinist has no basis for
charging that believing that Christ’s blood was shed for all leads inevitably
to universalism, the teaching that all are saved.
Particular Atonement?
Calvinists contend that “It makes no sense for Christ to offer
atonement for those the Father does not entrust to Him for salvation.”8
This is human reasoning without biblical support. Calvinists refer to
“particular atonement”—the idea that the death of Christ had to be for a
particular elect. Then Christ died only for particular sins—a belief that
misunderstands the very nature of the atonement. Christ did not die for
individual sins only, but for sin itself—a penalty that had to be paid for
anyone to be saved. But His paying the penalty for sin itself required
paying for all sins and providing salvation for all mankind.
Remember that to break one commandment is to be guilty of breaking
all: “For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point,
he is guilty of all” (James 2:10). This is the case because of the very nature
of sin. Sin is rebellion against God. Thus, however one rebels, no matter
how insignificant it seems from a human viewpoint, one is a rebel. Sin is
sin, and the penalty for what we might think is only the most trivial of sins
is eternal separation from God in the Lake of Fire.
There is no way that Christ’s death could be limited to paying for only
the sin of the elect. To deliver even one person from eternal punishment,
no matter how few or many the sins he may have committed, Christ had
to pay the penalty demanded by His infinite justice for sin. Therefore, the
death of Christ on the cross paid the penalty for sin itself (which includes
all sin) that hangs over the heads of the entire human race. It could not
be otherwise.
Christ is the “second man...the last Adam” (1 Corinthians 15:45–47),
the representative not merely of the elect but of the entire human race. It
couldn’t be otherwise. What He did at Calvary was efficacious for all
mankind. He paid for Adam’s sin, which brought death upon all, so in
paying that penalty He has freed all who willingly receive the salvation He
offers.
Yes, we “confess our sins” (1 John 1:9) just as the Israelites were
required to bring individual offerings for their individual sins. But there
was “the sin offering,” which made possible the forgiveness of all sin. “Sin
offering” in the singular is mentioned in the Book of Leviticus far more
than the offerings for sins.
That the blood of Christ was shed “for the remission of sins” is
declared in Matthew 26:28; Luke 24:47; 1 Corinthians 15:3, and many
other places. We are also told, however, that He died for sin. In fact, “sin”
is mentioned more than twice as many times as “sins.” Here are a few of
those passages:

• When thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin...He bare the
sin of many.... (Isaiah 53:10, 12)

• Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the
world. (John 1:29)
 • Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world....
(Romans 5:12)

• For the wages of sin is death.... (Romans 6:23)

• For he hath made him to be sin for us...that we might be made

the righteousness of God in him. (2 Corinthians 5:21)

• ...burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin.... (Hebrews 10:6, 8;

13:11)
The Gospel Is Personal
To be consistent with his avowed Calvinism, Spurgeon could not offer
salvation to each person to whom he preached, not knowing, as Jay
Adams has said, who, if any, in his audience were among the elect. But in
obedience to the Bible and in denial of Calvinism, Spurgeon preached the
gospel as a call to whosoever would believe. Such preaching sparked the
“Duty Faith” controversy in England, to which we have already referred.
We can and must declare, to anyone and everyone, “That if thou shalt
confess with thy mouth...and shalt believe in thine heart...thou shalt be
saved.... For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be
saved” (Romans 10:9,13).
Salvation cannot be offered to anyone for whom Christ did not die, yet
it is to be proclaimed to all: “Preach the gospel to every creature” (Mark
16:15). In contrast, the Calvinist cannot look an unsaved person in the eye
and say with confidence, “Christ died for you!” That person may not be
one of the elect, and such a statement could therefore be untrue. The
Calvinist cannot, and dare not, assure a dying person that Christ died for
him. Thus Calvinism denies the gospel of God’s grace!
Paul could not tell the Philippian jailor, “Believe on the Lord Jesus
Christ and thou shalt be saved, and thy house” if Christ had not died for
him and his family. Did Paul have a special revelation that this entire
family was among the elect—or is the gospel for all? How could Paul
declare the same to large audiences everywhere, such as at Antioch in
Pisidia: “...to you is the word of this salvation sent” (Acts 13:26), if Christ
died only for a limited number known as the elect? Surely not everyone in
the vast audiences he faced was among Calvinism’s elect! How could
Peter say to thousands of Jews gathered on Pentecost, “Repent, and be
baptized every one of you...” (Acts 2:38), if Christ had not died for each
and every one of them?
Just as Calvinists often contradict John Calvin and one another, Calvin
contradicted himself at times. He made statements both supporting
unlimited atonement and at other times in favor of limited atonement.
Referring to Isaiah 53:12 he said, “on Him was laid the guilt of the whole
world.”9 Concerning Mark 14:24, “This is my blood of the new testament,
which is shed for many,” Calvin said, “The word many does not mean a
part of the world, but the whole human race.”10 Where is “limited
atonement”?
When caught in such contradictions, the Calvinist resorts to
doubletalk. As we have seen, some Calvinists admit that God loves all, but
claim that He loves the elect alone with “redeeming love” and others with
a lesser love. MacArthur declares that God even “in some sense…loves his
enemies.”11 Some sense? What does that mean? Love is love! It would
not be love, in any sense, to fail to rescue from any disaster those who
could be rescued—much less to predestine them to eternal doom.
Although even acknowledging that God loves the whole world of
humanity, some Calvinists argue that this does not mean every individual
but mankind in general. As we’ve seen, MacArthur uses this specious
argument in his book, The Love of God.12
As we shall see when we come to Perseverance of the Saints, a major
problem for Calvinists is how to be certain that one is among the elect, for
whom alone, allegedly, Christ died. We see this uncertainty in Calvin
himself. In his will, drawn up shortly before his death, Calvin wrote, “I
humbly seek from God...to be washed and purified by the great
Redeemer’s blood, shed for the sins of the human race....”13 How is it that
this supposedly greatest of exegetes seemed uncertain of his salvation, in
spite of Scripture’s promise of absolute assurance: “These things have I
written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may
know that ye have eternal life...” (1 John 5:13)? Such assurance comes not
by a special revelation that one is among the elect but by simple faith in
Christ, “the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world” (John
1:29).
Changing the Meaning of “World”
Instead of acknowledging Calvin’s apparent denial of Limited
Atonement, which we have quoted above, White selectively quotes Calvin
contradicting himself again: “In relation to John 1:29 and 1 John 2:2 the
word ‘world’ is viewed as intending to transcend a nationalistic Jewish
particularism.”14 There is nothing anywhere, however, either in John’s
gospel or epistle, to suggest that odd meaning. Yet Calvinism must
interpret “world” as “the elect” in order to maintain itself. What did
Calvin really believe, especially at the end of his life? It has been said that
he began to have doubts, and the statement quoted from his will—“shed
for the sins of the human race”—seems to confirm it.
Calvin is quoted when it suits today’s Calvinists, and at other times he
is ignored. Yet this confusing doctrine, upon which its adherents do not
agree among themselves or even with Calvin, is still called “Calvinism” by
everyone. At the same time, however, Calvinists continue to contradict
Calvin, themselves, and each other.
Pink argued: “To say that God the Father has purposed the salvation of
all mankind, that God the Son died with the express intention of saving
the whole human race, and that God the Holy Spirit is now seeking to win
the world to Christ; when...it is apparent that the great majority of our
fellow-men are dying in sin, and passing into a hopeless eternity: is to say
that God the Father is disappointed, that God the Son is dissatisfied, and
that God the Holy Spirit is defeated.”15
Such human reasoning is neither biblical nor rational but,
unfortunately, is required to support Calvinism. To maintain this position,
one would have to say that God was insincere in the hundreds of urgent
and passionate pleadings and warnings for Israel to repent and obey Him,
which are expressed through His prophets throughout the Old Testament.
The fact is that Israel as a whole rebelled against Him continually during
its entire existence, and continues in unbelief and rejection of her
Messiah to this day. If such disobedience does not require God to be
disappointed, dissatisfied, and defeated (emotions that He cannot have),
then neither would that be God’s reaction when Gentiles He loves, and
for whom Christ died, reject the salvation He freely and lovingly offers.
Of course, the word “world” can have a variety of meanings, but the
times that it does not mean either the physical world, the ungodly world
system, or all mankind are exceedingly rare. Those instances could almost
be counted on one hand out of the nearly 240 times “world” is found in
the New Testament. Furthermore, we challenge any Calvinist to point out
one verse where “world” explicitly means the elect. Please, just one!
Of the 80 times “world” occurs in 59 verses in John’s gospel, not once
does it mean “elect.” That meaning has to be read into the text—and
there is nothing in the usage to differentiate between those times when
the Calvinist says it means “elect” and those times when he doesn’t say
so. Vance lists numerous examples from John’s Gospel where “world”
could not possibly mean the elect:
The world knew not Christ (1:10). The world hates Christ (7:7). The world’s works
are evil (7:7). Unsaved Jews were of this world (8:23). Satan is the prince of this
world (12:31; 14:30; 16:11). Christ’s own are distinguished from the world (13:1;
14:19, 22). The world cannot receive the Holy Spirit (14:17). The world hates the
disciples (15:18; 14:14) [and many more]....
 In arguing for limited atonement, Sproul inadvertently proves that the world does
not refer to the “elect”...: “He [Jesus] explicitly excludes the non-elect from his
great high priestly prayer, ‘I do not pray for the world but for those whom you
have given Me’ (John 17:9)....”16 So not only does the world never denote the
“elect,” it is unequivocally demeaned and condemned by God.17

Indeed, in Christ’s high priestly prayer, He specifically distinguishes

between the world of mankind for whom He died and those who have
believed on Him out of the world. This is not a prayer for the salvation of
the former, but for unity among the latter.
Each of us must, of course, go by the Bible, no matter what John Calvin
or Charles H. Spurgeon or anyone else taught. The only justification for
rejecting the ordinary meaning of “world” and assigning Calvinism’s
peculiar connotation (which certainly is nowhere plain from any text) is
that Calvinism requires it. Richard Baxter argues persuasively:
God telleth us as plain as can be spoken that Christ died for and tasted death for
every man...others will deny these plain truths, because they think that [God
cannot justly punish those for whom Christ hath paid the penalty].... But doth the
Scripture speak...these opinions of theirs as plainly as it saith that Christ died for all
and every man?

Doth it say as plainly anywhere that He died not for all...? Doth it say anywhere
that he died only for His Sheep, or His Elect, and exclude the Non-Elect? There is
no such word in the Bible....18

Ingenious but Irrational

A favorite ploy of the Calvinist is to suggest that “world” does not
mean “all people ‘without exception,’ but...‘without distinction’...not
[only] Jews, but also...Gentiles.”19 This is the same tactic as changing “all
people” into “all kinds of people”—an irrational idea born of desperation.
Such an idea is even more strained than to brazenly change “all people”
or “world” into “elect.” Under what circumstances would anyone
understand “all” to mean all kinds?
 A merchant advertises, “Giant Sale! All merchandise half price.” Eager
customers, however, discover that certain items are excluded from the
sale. When they complain that the ad read all merchandise, the merchant
says, “I didn’t mean all ‘without exception,’ but all ‘without distinction.’
All kinds of products are indeed on sale, but not every item of every
kind.” This would be misleading advertising, and customers would have a
legitimate complaint. Yet the Calvinist insists that God uses this same kind
of deception in offering salvation to “whosovever will.”
If a shepherd said, “I’m selling all of my sheep,” would anyone think he
meant some of all kinds, i.e., some males, some females, some newborn
lambs, etc.? If headlines read, “All males between the ages of 20 and 45
are subject to military draft,” who would imagine that it really meant
some blacks, some whites, some from Illinois, some from Utah, etc.? Or if
the announcement were made to a group of tourists stopping at an oasis
near the Dead Sea in Israel that “Whoever is thirsty should get a drink
now,” would anyone imagine this meant some women, some men, some
elderly among the thirsty, etc.?
Such a special meaning is nowhere found in all of Scripture. Yet
Calvinism requires it for every one of the numerous statements
concerning “all” and “world” and “whosoever,” etc. that relates to the
gospel throughout the entire Bible! Wouldn’t the Calvinist meaning be
stated clearly at least once? Yet it never is!
What About 1 John 2:2?
Lacking references in the Bible that plainly say that Christ died only for
the elect, Calvinists somehow have to change those that say He died for
all. First John 2:2 clearly states that Christ is “the propitiation for our sins
and not for ours only, but for the sins of the whole world.” Surely “our”
and “ours” must refer to the elect. Therefore “the whole world,” being in
contrast to the elect, can only refer to the unsaved and would prove that
Christ’s death is propitiatory for all mankind.
 To acknowledge what this passage declares would be the end of
Calvinism. But how can that conclusion be avoided? Piper writes, “The
‘whole world’ refers to the children of God scattered throughout the
whole world.”20 But isn’t that what our and ours would refer to: everyone
who is saved, no matter where or when they live—and isn’t “whole
world” placed in contrast to “our” and “ours”? White elaborates a bit
further on this brazen eisegesis, which Calvinists have devised in order to
rescue their Limited Atonement theory:
The Reformed understanding is that Jesus Christ is the propitiation for the sins of
all the Christians to which John was writing, and not only them, but for all
Christians throughout the world, Jew and Gentile, at all times and in all places.21

Surely, “if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father,” refers to
all Christians anywhere and at any time. Likewise, the “our” in “he is the
propitiation for our sins” must refer to all Christians, not just John’s
contemporaries. It certainly is a true statement for all believers in Christ
in every time, place, and culture. Furthermore, John’s entire epistle, like
all of the Bible of which it is a part, is addressed to all believers
everywhere and in all ages. If the “our” thus refers to the redeemed, then
“the whole world,” being in contrast, could only represent those who are
lost.
To escape the obvious, White claims that John was only writing to the
Christians of his day, and, therefore, “our” means those who originally
read the epistle; and “the whole world” means all other Christians not
alive at the time when the epistle was written.22 Nothing in the text even
hints at such a conclusion. Nor would such a frivolous interpretation have
been invented had it not been necessary in order to rescue Limited
Atonement. Undeniably, in everything he says, John is writing under the
inspiration of the Holy Spirit to all Christians everywhere and in all ages.
Piper reasons that “Propitiated sins cannot be punished.... Therefore it
is very unlikely that 1 John 2:2 teaches that Jesus is the propitiation of
every person in the world....”23 Unlikely? Only because the plain
declaration contradicts Calvinism. We have already shown that this
argument doesn’t work for at least two reasons: 1) Christ had to pay the
penalty for all sin for even one person to be saved; and 2) the benefits of
Christ’s death do not come automatically, but only to those who believe
and receive Him. Were this not the case, then the elect, for whom the
Calvinist says Christ did die, would be saved without believing and before
they were born.
Finally, Piper, following John Owens’s lead, reasons that if Christ is
really the propitiation for the sins of the whole world, then unbelief
would not keep anyone out of heaven, because unbelief, being a sin,
would have been propitiated as well.24
But propitiation does not occur when one believes in Christ. It must
already have been accomplished on the Cross. Faith is the means of
appropriating the benefits of Christ’s sacrifice—a sacrifice that even the
Calvinist acknowledges was of sufficient value to pay for the sins of all
mankind. Either the elect were always saved and never needed to believe
on Christ (a clear denial of the gospel), or there was a time when the
propitiation Christ made on the Cross became effective for them through
faith. John is simply saying with Paul that Christ “is the Saviour of all men,
specially of those that believe” (1 Timothy 4:10).
Every Christian, by very definition, has been saved through faith in
Christ, and His blood is the propitiation for their sins. This fact is so
elementary and essential that one could hardly be a Christian without
knowing it. It is therefore absurd to suggest that John is revealing
something of importance by declaring that the blood of Christ avails not
only for the people alive in his day but for all Christians in all ages. If this is
what the Holy Spirit through John intended, why wasn’t it stated clearly?
Would the Holy Spirit use “world” to convey the meaning “all Christians in
all times everywhere”? Hardly.
To Whom Did John Write?
Other Calvinists argue that “John would have been writing to a Jewish
audience who had long believed that God was only the God of Israel. And
so they needed to be taught and reminded that Christ died not only for
the lost sheep of Israel but also for his lost sheep in all the world.... Thus,
the ‘whole world’ is his lost sheep of Israel plus his lost sheep from among
the other nations.”25 Surely, no one would even imagine such a far-
fetched idea had Calvinism not been invented and an explanation
required for “world” that would salvage the theory.
There is nothing in the entire epistle to suggest that John is addressing
only Jewish believers. Indeed, when this was written there were more
Gentile than Jewish believers. Furthermore, John tells us to whom he is
speaking: “These things have I written unto you that believe on the name
of the Son of God...” (1 John 5:13). That includes all Christians throughout
history.
Moreover, not only is John writing to all believers in Christ, but he is
doing so many years after the Jerusalem council of Acts 15, where the
whole issue of salvation for Gentiles without their keeping the law of
Moses had been settled. Paul’s letter to the Galatian believers, which
dealt with this issue in depth, had long been in circulation. John doesn’t
deal with this long-settled topic at all.
Who would have imagined, without the necessity to support a special
theory, that John was writing only to the Christians of his day, or only to a
Jewish audience? Furthermore, if John were not writing to all Christians in
all ages, how could we apply his epistle to ourselves today? In fact, we
know that he was writing to all believers in Christ, and Christians
throughout the ages have read his gospel and epistles with that
understanding.
When John writes, “He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his
commandments, is a liar.… [H]e that saith he is in the light, and hateth his
brother, is in darkness.… [Y]e have an unction from the Holy One.... [T]he
anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you...” (1 John
2:4,9,20,27), etc., throughout his epistle, could that only be intended for
“Jewish believers” or for believers “of his own day”? Of course not! Surely
all that he says is for all believers in Christ in every age.
What About the Meaning of “The Whole World”?
White quotes the song of the redeemed in Revelation 5:9–10. Because
it says that Christ has redeemed by His blood men “out of every kindred,
and tongue, and people, and nation,” White reasons, “We suggest that
this passage, then, sheds significant light upon 1 John 2:2...” Significant
light? The passage is very straightforward. The only “light” White is
searching so far afield for is something that will justify a Calvinist
interpretation that is obviously not in the passage itself.
White continues, “...for it is obvious that the passage in Revelation is
not saying that Christ purchased every man from every tribe, tongue,
people and nation. Yet, obviously, this is a parallel concept to ‘the world’
in 1 John 2:2.”
Parallel concept? What does that mean, and by what authority? The
two statements are entirely different. One declares that Christ died for
all; the other refers to those who accepted His sacrifice by faith. If White
were truly looking for a parallel scripture, he couldn’t find a clearer one
than 1 Timothy 4:10, which we have already quoted: “…the Saviour of all
men [the whole world], specially of those that believe” [the redeemed to
whom John writes].
White then quotes the High Priest Caiaphas (John 11:49–52) that it is
expedient “that one man die for the people, and that the whole nation
perish not.”26 Surely Caiaphas really meant the people of Israel, the
whole nation, a fact that contradicts Calvinism’s Limited Atonement.
Sadly, this is one more example of how far Calvinists have to reach: to
suggest that a future song in heaven and a statement by Caiaphas about
the nation of Israel prove that “world” in 1 John 2:2 really means “all
Christians throughout the world...”! The song in heaven is by the
redeemed, those who make up the “our” in 1 John 2:2. They are
redeemed “from” or “out of” every tribe and tongue and people and
nation. In fact, White is helping us to see a contrast: John does not say
“from” or “out of” the whole world; he clearly says “the whole world.”
Why must White go so far afield? Within this very epistle there are
many comparisons that define “world.” In 1 John 3:1 we have the phrase,
“...the world knoweth us not.” Surely “us” refers to the redeemed;
“world” is in contrast to them and cannot possibly mean some other
group of Christians. In 3:13 we find, “Marvel not, my brethren, if the
world hate you.” Again, we have the same contrast between the
redeemed brethren and the unsaved who hate them, making the
meaning of “world” quite clear. In 4:5–6 we find, “They are of the
world...we are of God.” The distinction between the unsaved world and
those who are saved—which is maintained consistently throughout the
entire epistle—could not be clearer. Again, 1 John 5:19 declares, “We are
of God, and the whole world lieth in wickedness.”
To be consistent with his handling of 1 John 2:2, White must believe
that “all Christians throughout the world, Jew and Gentile, at all times and
in all places” are in wickedness and hate the believers to whom John was
writing. In fact, nowhere in the entire epistle does “world” mean what the
Calvinist tries to turn it into in 1 John 2:2!
There can be no doubt that throughout this entire epistle the word
“world” consistently means exactly what a reasonable reader would
expect: the world of mankind at large in contrast to the body of believers.
One cannot claim that “world” in 1 John 2:2 is an exception and has a
different meaning from everywhere else in the epistle. We can only
conclude that Christ is the propitiation for the sins of the whole world,
and therefore His death was not propitiatory for the elect only but for the
sins of all mankind. Indeed, John says exactly that in so many words: “the
Father sent the Son to be the Saviour of the world” (1 John 4:14).
Does that mean that all are automatically saved by Christ’s death? No.
The good news of the gospel is “the power of God unto salvation to
everyone that believeth…” (Romans 1:16).
Clearly, without special definitions of words and much Scripture-
twisting, the doctrine of Limited Atonement crumbles, and with it the rest
of Calvinism.

1. Edwin H. Palmer, the five points of calvinism (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, enlarged
ed., 20th prtg. 1999). 42.
2. John Piper and Pastoral Staff, “TULIP: What We Believe about the Five Points of
Calvinism: Position Paper of the Pastoral Staff” (Minneapolis, MN: Desiring God Ministries,
1997), 11.
3. Loraine Boettner, Reformed Doctrine of Predestination (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and
Reformed Publishing Company, 1998 ed.) 157.
4. Loraine Boettner, The Reformed Faith (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed
Publishing Co., 1983), 14.
5. Wm. Oosterman, “Take a Long Look at the Doctrine of Election” (Ottawa, Canada: The
Lord’s Library Publications, n. d.), 17. Available from Westboro Baptist Church, Ottawa.
6. Grover E. Gunn, The Doctrine of Grace, (Memphis, TN: Footstool Publications, 1987), 17.
7. Sermons of C. H. Spurgeon (available from Pilgrim Publications, Pasadena TX, n. d.),
48:303.
8. James R. White, The Potter’s Freedom (Amityville, NY: Calvary Press Publishing, 2000),
231.
9. George Zeller, cited in “For Whom Did Christ Die?” (The Middletown Bible Church, 349
East Street, Middletown CT 06457, 1999), 23–24.
10. John Calvin, Calvin’s New Testament Commentaries (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm B. Eerdmans
Publishing Co., 1994), III:139.
11. John MacArthur, Jr., The Love of God (Dallas, TX: Word Publishing, 1996), 103.
12. Ibid., xv, 16–20, 99–124, etc.
13. Zeller, “For Whom,” 23-24.
14. Cited in White, Potter’s, 257.
15. Arthur W. Pink, The Sovereignty of God (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 2nd prtg.
1986), 20.
16. Sproul, Chosen, 206.
17. Laurence M. Vance, The Other Side of Calvinism (Pensacola, FL: Vance Publications, rev.
ed. 1999), 435.
18. Richard Baxter, Universal Redemption of Mankind (London: n. p., 1694), 282–83.
19. Thomas R. Schreiner, “Does Scripture Teach Prevenient Grace in the Wesleyan Sense?”,
ed. Thomas R. Schreiner and Bruce A. Ware, Still Sovereign: Contemporary Perspectives on
Election, Foreknowledge, and Grace (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2000), 240.
20. Piper and Staff, “TULIP,” 16.
21. White, Potter’s, 273–74.
22. Ibid., 274–75.
23. Piper and Staff, “TULIP,” 16.
24. Ibid., 18.
25. Letter to Dave Hunt, dated September 3, 2000. On file.
26. White, Potter’s, 275.
20—Understanding Pivotal Scriptures
A MAJOR PASSAGE to which Calvinists look for support is Romans 9. R.
C. Sproul declares that Romans 9:16 alone (“So then it is not of him that
willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy”) “is
absolutely fatal to Arminianism.”1 But the phrase “of him that willeth”
credits man with a will that can desire to come to Christ. The verse is
simply saying that human desire and effort are of no avail without God’s
grace. We are not defending Arminianism (whose adherents also do not
agree among themselves); we are simply testing TULIP by God’s Word.
Calvinists believe that Romans chapter 9 proves that man’s choice has
no role in salvation and that before birth, all men are predestined either
to heaven or to damnation. White says, “It speaks of the inviolability of
God’s purpose in election and shows that His choices are not determined
by anything in man [i.e., foreknowledge of an individual’s eventual
response to the gospel].”2 Piper says that Jacob and Esau “were
appointed for their respected [sic] destinies [for eternity] before they
were born.”3 Hoeksema agrees: “We conclude, therefore, that the
predestination of Jacob and Esau is a personal election and reprobation
unto salvation and eternal desolation respectively.”4 In fact, this is not the
case, as we shall see.
In Romans 9:13 (“As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I
hated”), Paul is quoting the prophet Malachi (Malachi 1:2). Such a
statement is “written” nowhere else in Scripture. Nor is Malachi the
prophet referring to Jacob and Esau as individuals but to the nations
which descended from them: “The...word of the LORD to Israel by Malachi.
I have loved you...and I hated Esau, and laid his mountains and his
heritage waste.... Edom...shall build, but I will throw down; and they shall
call them...the people against whom the LORD hath indignation for ever....
I change not; therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed” (Malachi 1:1–
4; 3:6).
Quite clearly, by “Esau” is meant the na on of Edom descended from
him, and “Jacob” means Israel. Esau and Jacob as individuals are not in
view.
Salvation Is Not the Subject
There is no reference in Malachi to the eternal salvation of either
Jacob or Esau or their descendants, much less that Jacob and his
descendants were predestined for heaven and Esau with his descendants
for hell. No verse in Malachi even implies this! Clearly Paul’s quotation of
Malachi is improperly used in attempting to prove Calvinism’s
predestination and reprobation.
Furthermore, we know that many Israelites who descended from
Jacob were lost eternally; conversely, one cannot prove that every
descendant of Esau is or will be in hell. Even Calvinists would not say that
every Israelite belonged to the elect in the Calvinist sense.
Commenting on the reference to Esau and Jacob in Romans, chapter 9,
Broughton said, “Election is God choosing out a people through whom He
is going to manifest Himself.... It is not…to salvation, but…to service....”5
In full agreement, Professor H. H. Rowley declared, “Election is for
service.... God chose Israel...not alone that He might reveal Himself to
her, but that He might claim her for service.”6 Fisk comments, “Rowley,
indeed, goes so far as to suggest that election is something which, if not
fulfilled by the elect, may be withdrawn from them—a thought at which
committed Calvinists would shudder.”7 Interestingly, Rowley’s comments
were part of a series of lectures he gave at Spurgeon’s College in London.
Nor does Paul in Romans 9 even hint any more than does Malachi at
the individual salvation of Esau, Jacob, or Pharaoh. Yet what Paul says
about these individuals is used by Calvinists to “prove” their peculiar
doctrine of election and predestination unto salvation or damnation.
Vance points out that “the basic error of Calvinism is confounding
election and predestination with salvation, which they never are in the
Bible, but only in the philosophical speculations and theological
implications of Calvinism....”8 In fact, election and predestination always
have to do with a particular purpose, ministry, or blessing to which one
has been elected—not salvation.
“Two Nations...and Two Manner of People”
The fact that God was referring to nations and not to Jacob and Esau
as individuals was clear from the very start. During her pregnancy, as the
twins “struggled together within her,” God told Rebekah, “Two nations
are in thy womb, and two manner of people...the one...shall be
stronger...and the elder shall serve the younger” (Genesis 25:23). If the
individuals were in view, this would be a false prophecy, because Esau
never served his brother, Jacob, nor could it be said that Jacob was
stronger than Esau during their respective lifetimes.
The prophecy was, however, perfectly fulfilled in the nations (Edom
and Israel) descended from Esau and Jacob. Yet Calvinists ignore that fact
because it doesn’t fit their theory, and they go to great lengths to make it
apply to individual salvation or reprobation. For example, in all his “proof”
of election to salvation from Romans 9, White, like most Calvinists, never
mentions Genesis 25:23. Why does he avoid it? The reason is obvious.
Piper makes four oblique references to Genesis 25:23 but never
exegetes it: 1) He quotes “the elder shall serve the younger” but not the
essential statement that two nations are involved;9 2) He mentions in a
footnote (“Luther denies Erasmus’ interpretation of both Genesis 25:23
and Malachi 1:2”),10 but fails to explain this denial or to show its validity;
3) He quotes Shrenk’s statement in opposition to his own and in
agreement with what we are saying, “The reference here is not to
salvation, but to position and historical task, cf. the quotation from
Genesis 25:23 in Romans 9:12: ‘The elder shall serve the younger’,”11 but
again, there is no recognition of God’s statement that He was referring to
nations; and 4) When he finally gives the full quote, he goes off on a
tangent about how Israel became stronger than Edom and fails to make
the obvious application to Romans 9: “The birth to Isaac and Rebecca
of...Jacob and Esau was announced to Rebecca in Genesis 25:23, ‘Two
nations are in your womb, and two peoples born of you shall be divided.…
The elder shall serve the younger.’ How it became possible for Jacob and
his descendants to gain the ascendancy over Esau and his descendants...is
described in Genesis 25:29–34 and Genesis 27:18–29.”12
In fact, the “ascendency” did not occur during the lifetime of either
Jacob or Esau but referred to their descendants only. Piper goes on to
discuss that aspect, but gives no recognition whatsoever of the import of
two nations being the subject of God’s original prophecy and of Malachi’s
confirmation thereof. To do so would undermine the Calvinist
interpretation of Romans 9, one of their key passages.
Luther, too, avoids facing the full impact of the fact that, in both
Genesis and Malachi, God is ultimately referring to nations within which
not every individual is either saved or lost.13 Although he mentions that
“two peoples are clearly distinguished,”14 Luther erroneously applies it all
to individual salvation to support his argument against free will.
God’s clear statements in Genesis 25 have nothing to do with the
eternal destiny of Esau and Jacob to heaven or to hell, but concern the
“manner of people” their descendants would be and how they would fit
into God’s purposes. Thus, in quoting Genesis 25:23, Paul could not be
speaking of individual salvation either, but rather of God’s election of
Israel to a preferred position of blessing and usefulness. The indisputable
fact that two future nations are the subject of God’s prophecy to Rebecca
completely undermines Calvinistic arguments. Dick Sanford writes:
 Circle that word, “Serve.” It’s not saying, “The elder shall be saved and the younger
shall not be.” Never mix the scripture that is talking about service with scripture
that is talking about salvation.... Service includes works that are rewarded.
Salvation is grace apart from works....

Here the Lord says that before they were ever born, He knew which one was going
to be born first and.… I am going to switch this service pattern...[and] the
inheritance is going to come through the younger instead of the older. That is a
reversal also....

Now it does not say, “Jacob have I saved [for] heaven and Esau…can’t go to
heaven....[but] I told you that…the blessing is not going to come through Esau...the
children of Esau are not going to lead up to the Messiah; it’s the children of Jacob
that are going to lead up to the Messiah. (Emphasis in original)15

What About the Individuals?

Other than the two references in Malachi and Romans, we are told
only once more that God loved Jacob (Psalm 47:4), and never again that
He hated Esau. Moreover, “loved” and “hated” are comparative terms (as
when Christ says we must hate father and mother in comparison to our
love for Him—Matthew 10:37–38; Luke 14:26) and have nothing to do
with salvation. As Forster and Marston point out,
Malachi 1:2 does not mean that in a literal hatred of Esau and his descendants God
has condemned every one of them to hell. It has reference simply to the higher
position of the Hebrew race in the strategy of God.... In the original to which Paul
is referring, Esau is simply a synonym for Edom [clear from the context: Malachi
1:2–5].... God’s choice of Israel could not be a result of her merit or works....
[Paul’s] introduction of the quotation from Malachi 1:2 is therefore of particular
relevance here, and he uses it as he develops his theme....16

Calvinists emphasize the statement, “For the children being not yet
born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God
according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that
calleth....” However, this statement is simply further proof that election is
determined by foreknowledge. No one merits God’s blessing, which is all
of His grace—it is given to those who He foreknows will receive it.
 Before these men were born, God knew that Jacob would turn to Him,
that Esau would despise his birthright, and that his descendants would be
the enemies of Israel. On that basis He hated Esau/Edom. If this were not
the case, we would have God hating for no reason at all, which is contrary
to all that the Bible tells us of the God who “is love.” Furthermore, if that
were the case, it would render meaningless Christ’s prophetic statement
that “They hated me without a cause” (John 15:25).
It is clear that the election of Jacob and rejection of Esau had nothing
to do with the salvation or damnation of either individual, or of their
descendants. For Calvinists to use these passages to that end is simply
faulty exegesis. Yet Palmer insists, “Thus, Romans 9 is clear in asserting
that both election and preterition [passing over the non-elect] are
unconditional...‘Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.’”17
What About Pharaoh?
Pharaoh’s case, likewise, has nothing to do with his eternal destiny.
God knew in advance the evil, self-willed heart of this tyrant, and that is
why God raised him up at this particular time: “[F]or this cause have I
raised thee up, for to shew in thee my power; and that my name may be
declared throughout all the earth” (Exodus 9:16). God used Pharaoh’s
stubborn, proud heart to fully judge all the gods of Egypt, in the process
of delivering His people from that pagan land.
God did not cause Pharaoh to sin, but arranged circumstances and
events to put this particular man (whose every quirk and wicked impulse
He foreknew in detail) to be in authority at that particular time, in order
to use his evil to fulfill His will. We affirm as biblical and reasonable both
God’s ability and His sovereign right to arrange circumstances and to
position on the stage of life those players whom He foreknows, so that
His will is effected in human affairs—and to do so without violating their
will or encouraging (much less becoming accessory to) their crimes.
For God to put Pharaoh at the right place and time to fit into His plans
for Israel and Egypt has nothing to do with any of the elements in TULIP
that affect personal salvation. Nor did God cause Pharaoh’s actions; He
simply allowed Pharaoh’s evil to run its course, even strengthening
Pharaoh’s evil resolve to the extent to which it fulfilled God’s own
purpose.
There is only one biblical explanation for God taking some to heaven
and sending others to hell: Salvation is a genuine offer, and God, in His
omniscient foreknowledge, knows how each person will respond. The only
cogent reason consistent with God’s character for election and
predestination of the redeemed to certain blessings is God’s omniscient
foreknowledge of who would believe. Concerning this entire passage
dealing with Esau, Jacob, and Pharaoh, Ironside wrote:
There is no question here of predestination to Heaven or reprobation to hell.... We
are not told here, nor anywhere else, that before children are born it is God’s
purpose to send one to Heaven and another to hell.... The passage has to do
entirely with privilege here on earth.18

Paul concludes this section by declaring that God, “to make his power
known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath [such as
Pharaoh] fitted to destruction” (Romans 9:22). Though enduring such
vessels of wrath, God does not cause them to be or do evil. Rather, He
sometimes purposes to use those whose hearts are evil, and endures
their opposition and wickedness to the extent to which it fits into His will.
In that way, God is able to make the wrath of man to praise Him (Psalm
76:10).
“Whom He Will He Hardeneth”
In relation to Pharaoh, Romans 9:18 states, “Therefore hath he mercy
on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.” Calvinists
make a great deal of the statement that God hardened Pharaoh’s heart,
as though that proves Unconditional Election and Limited Atonement. On
the contrary, the hardening of his heart had nothing to do with whether
Pharaoh would go to heaven, but with God’s use of Pharaoh at the time
of Israel’s deliverance from Egypt. God says His purpose was “that I might
shew these my signs before him: and that thou mayest tell in the ears of
thy son, and of thy son’s son, what things I have wrought in Egypt, and my
signs which I have done among them; that ye may know how that I am
the LORD” (Exodus 10:1).
When God hardened Pharaoh’s heart to further His purposes for Israel
and Egypt, to manifest His power more fully, and specifically to complete
His judgment upon the gods of Egypt, He was, in fact, only helping
Pharaoh to do what that tyrant wanted to do. When He sent Moses to
Egypt, God declared, “I am sure that the king of Egypt will not let you
go...” (Exodus 3:19). This was Pharaoh’s disposition before a word was
said about God’s hardening of his heart.
Yet Calvinists are almost unanimous in their avoidance of this
scripture. Passing it by, they begin their comments with Exodus 4:21, “I
will harden his heart, that he shall not let the people go.” Like the others,
Pink ignores 3:19 and writes, “did not God harden his heart before the
plagues were sent upon Egypt?—see Exodus 4:21!”19 White, too, avoids
3:19 and also uses 4:21 as foundational.20 So does Piper. In building his
lengthy argument concerning the hardening of Pharaoh’s heart, he relies
heavily upon 4:21. Piper’s many pages of erudite citations of the original
Hebrew and Greek, with accompanying complicated arguments, lose their
luster in view of his disregard of 3:19, which, had he noted it, would have
changed the whole picture.21
Unfortunately, Piper flooded The Justification of God with Greek and
Hebrew words in those alphabets without the English equivalents that
authors usually supply. Thus, readers who are not Greek and Hebrew
scholars must take his word for what he says. Nevertheless, his comments
are revealing:
[B]efore the first active assertion of God’s hardening in Exodus 9:12 there are two
 assertions that he [Pharaoh] hardened his own heart [8:15, 32] and after 9:12
there are two assertions that he hardened his own heart [9:34,35]. [Thus]
Pharaoh’s “self-hardening” is equally well attested before and after the first
statement that God has hardened him….” (Emphasis added)22

Piper acknowledges that Pharaoh hardened his own heart, both before
and after “the first active assertion of God’s hardening....” It is important
to understand that “God did not give Pharaoh the wicked desire to rebel
against him. What God did was to give him the courage to carry out that
desire. Thus God’s action merely made the difference between a wicked
act and the suppression of an evil desire through fear.”23 Furthermore,
there is nothing in the story to indicate that Pharaoh was unable to obey
God by a genuine response from his heart. Contradicting what he says
elsewhere, and in a very un-Calvinistic statement that suggests free will,
Calvin acknowledges that the ungodly can be moved to genuine
repentance by God’s warnings:
Who does not now see that by threatenings of this kind [Jonah’s prophecy of
Nineveh’s destruction, etc.], God wished to arouse those to repentance whom he
terrified that they might escape the judgment which their sins deserved.24

In this case, however, through His foreknowledge God knew that

Pharaoh, like Esau, would reject His will—just as He knew that Jacob
would submit and obey (Genesis 28:7, 20–21; 32:9–11, 24–32; 49:28–33,
etc.). Pharaoh was an evil man who had long abused the people of God.
He selfishly desired to protect his own interests by keeping these people
as slaves.
Yet the plagues became so terrifying that Pharaoh would have let
Israel go—not from genuine repentance but from fear of further
judgment. Yahweh, however, had not finished judging the gods of Egypt.
Therefore, He hardened Pharaoh’s heart by giving him the courage to
persist in the resistance he really wanted to pursue, until God had fully
executed His judgment upon Egypt’s gods, bringing forth “the children of
Israel, out of the land of Egypt by great judgments” (Exodus 7:4).
We gain a better understanding of God’s dealings with Pharaoh
through the Hebrew words translated “harden” or “hardened” in the King
James. In the sense of hardening one’s own heart, kabed is used four
times: Exodus 7:14, 8:15, 9:7 and 9:34. Qashah, only used once (Exodus
7:3), means to become stiff-necked or stubborn. Chazaq (Exodus 4:21;
7:13,22; 8:15; 9:12,35; 10:20,27; 11:10; 14:4,8,17) means to strengthen or
give courage, indicating that God was not causing Pharaoh to be an evil
man or to do evil actions, but was giving Pharaoh the strength and
courage to stand by his intent not to let Israel go, even when the plagues
became overwhelmingly terrifying. As Forster and Marston explain after
an in-depth word study:
The Bible does not teach that God made Pharaoh unrepentant. The main word
used for the hardening of Pharaoh’s heart is chazaq, and it seems to mean that
God emboldened or encouraged Pharaoh’s heart so that he had the stubborn
courage to stand even in the face of very frightening miracles.... God never
prevents anyone from repenting. “Have I any pleasure in the death of the wicked?
Says the Lord God: and not rather that he should return from his way and live?”
(Emphasis added)25

Nor does the example of Pharaoh support the Calvinist view of Total
Depravity. If Pharaoh had been totally depraved, why would God have to
harden his heart? Piper says that four times Pharaoh hardened his own
heart. Why even say so, if he could do nothing else? How could a totally
depraved heart become harder than it already was?
Nor does it say that when Pharaoh at last let Israel go, God caused him
to do so with Irresistible Grace. He was simply terrified, and on that basis
submitted to Yahweh’s will (Exodus 12:30–33), but still without true
repentance.
Clay, the Potter, and Vessels of Wrath
As Paul’s final commentary (White calls it a “crescendo”)26 in this
important passage, he declares that no one can complain against God for
what He does, because the clay has no right to demand of the potter,
Why hast thou made me thus? Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the
same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour? What if
God, willing to...make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the
vessels of wrath fitted to destruction: And that he might make known the riches of
his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory, even us,
whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles? (Romans
9:20–24)

Calvinists rely heavily upon this scripture passage. White declares:

The Potter’s freedom pulses through these words, flowing inexorably into the sea
of sovereignty, rushing any would-be proponent of free will out of its path. God
has the perfect right to do with His creation (including men) as He wishes, just as
the Potter has utter sovereignty over the clay...“vessels of wrath.....” Are these
nations...? No, these are sinners upon whom God’s wrath comes. They are said to
have been specifically “prepared for destruction.” That is their purpose.27
(Emphasis in original)

That God the Potter 1) has the right to do with men as He pleases, and
2) endures with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath, we do not deny.
That is all, however, that this passage tells us—it does not tell us what His
desire is. Numerous other passages, however, do tell us in the clearest
terms that God desires all to come to repentance and the knowledge of
the truth, that He is not willing that any should perish, and that He takes
no pleasure in the death of the wicked. We have cited many of these
passages already.
There is nothing in Romans 9:20–24 to indicate that God the Potter
causes anyone to be or do evil. Much less does this passage prove, as
Calvinists claim, that God predestines some to heaven and others to hell.
Paul is referring to God’s use of the innate evil of wicked men such as
Esau and Pharaoh, when it suits His purpose, to fulfill His will. In so doing,
He endures “the contradiction of sinners” (Hebrews 12:3). Nor does the
fact that God brings these vessels of wrath to the destruction they
deserve prove that this is His will for them or that they have no choice,
much less that they were predestined to destruction.
The Calvinist says God could, through Irresistible Grace, cause all
mankind to believe in Christ and obey Him. If that be true, then the fact
that He does not do so runs counter to all that the Bible says of His
lovingkindness, mercy, and grace. There is no explanation for this glaring
contradiction: the Calvinist is forced to plead “mystery.”
In contrast, Scripture declares that God has given men the power of
choice. Therefore, to force irresistible grace upon them would itself
contradict that gift. God violates no one’s will. Granted, He could have
been gracious and suppressed the wickedness of Pharaoh and Judas had
it suited His plans—but that would not have changed either their hearts
or eternal destiny. As for these “vessels unto dishonor...fitted to
destruction,” however, He chose instead to strengthen their resolve to
wickedness in order to effect His will. He did not cause them to choose
evil, He used their wicked choice for His own purposes and in so doing
“endured” their rebellion.
Herman Hoeksema claims that the example of the Potter teaches
“God’s absolute sovereignty to determine the final destiny of men, either
to honor or dishonor, to salvation and glory or to damnation and
desolation.”28 Likewise, Piper says, “It is clear that Paul still has in mind
the issue of unconditional election [to salvation or damnation] raised in
Romans 9:6–13.”29 We have just given a different explanation—which is
both a reasonable exegesis and is in agreement with God’s character of
love and justice—and scores of other scriptures that declare God’s love
for all and His desire that all be saved. Paul is not at all dealing with the
eternal destiny of Esau, Jacob, and Pharaoh.
John 3:16–17 Revisited
If there is one Bible verse that every child who ever attended an
evangelical Sunday school is sure to know, that verse is John 3:16. What
child encountering this verse for the first time, without a Calvinist
teacher, would conclude that “world” did not mean the whole world of
mankind but a limited number of individuals chosen by God? None would,
of course.
Calvin himself, in his commentary on John 3:16, stated that “world”
included “all men without exception.” Luther also said it meant “the
entire human race.” But White, realizing that such an admission does
away with Limited Atonement, manages a desperate end run around John
3:16. He suggests that sound exegesis requires “that whosoever believeth
on him should not perish” actually means “in order that everyone
believing in him should not perish....”30 That slight twist allows White to
suggest that Calvinism’s elect alone believe (God having caused them to
do so), and thus Christ died only for them. Even if that were true,
Calvinism would still have to explain (in view of its insistence that men
must be born again before God can give them faith) how eternal life can
be received without faith. (Surely, sovereign “regeneration” is not to
temporary life!) That question will be considered under Irresistible Grace.
To prevent such twisting of His Word, Christ himself explains this
passage unequivocally: “And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the
wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up: that whosoever
believeth on him should not perish, but have eternal life.” (John 3:14–15).
There is no question that just as the law and the entire Levitical sacrificial
system were for “all Israel” (2 Chronicles 29:24; Ezra 6:17; Malachi 4:4,
etc.), so was God’s provision of the upraised serpent: “…every one…any
man, when he beheld the serpent of brass, he lived” (Numbers 21:8–9).
In one look of simple faith, healing flowed to each and every Israelite
without exception. The precise connection Christ reveals between this
Old Testament type and His crucifixion for sin (”as Moses lifted up the
servant…so must the Son of man be lifted up”) cannot be escaped. “…that
whosoever believeth in him should not perish but have everlasting life” is
a promise for all.
Every Old Testament type of the Cross was for every Israelite. There
was no special elect among them to whom alone the Passover, manna,
water out of the rock, the Day of Atonement, or general offerings for sin
applied. Significantly, any check of the list of scriptures used in Calvinist
books will reveal an avoidance of references to Old Testament types of
Christ and His sacrifice on the Cross. The reason needs no explanation.
Like most other apologists for Calvinism, White avoids John 3:14-15
and doesn’t even attempt to deal with the unequivocal statement in 3:17
“that the world through him might be saved” (to which his explanation of
John 3:16 couldn’t possibly apply). Obviously, this further comment by
Christ explains the meaning of the entire section (John 3:14–18)
pertaining to His death on the Cross, making it very clear that God gave
His Son for the salvation of the entire world. Nor does White quote Calvin
or anyone else concerning John 3:17. None of the thirteen contributors to
Still Sovereign touches it. (We deal with this in more depth in chapter 27.)
Of course, White’s interpretation of John 3:16 must agree with his
argument that 1 John 2:2 couldn’t possibly mean “that Christ’s death is a
satisfaction for the whole world.” He justifies that view by the fact that
John goes on to tell us “not to love the world!”31 How does the fact that
we are not to love the world prove that Christ did not die for the sins of
the whole world? Obviously, John is using “world” in two different ways:
the people of the world, and the world system.
Recognizing that fact, White rightly declares that in 1 John 2:15
“world” means “the present evil system, not the universal population of
mankind” (emphasis in original). White is now caught in a web of his own
making. If the fact that “world” in verse 15 means “the present evil
system” refutes the claim that in verse 2 it means all the people in the
world, why would it not also refute White’s view that it means “all
Christians throughout the world...at all times and in all places”?32
 There is no way to escape the straightforward meaning: in 1 John 2:2,
“world” means all unsaved mankind.
Christ Died for All
The scriptures declaring that Christ died to save all mankind are so
numerous that only a few can be presented. In scriptures such as “For the
Son of man is come to seek and to save that which was lost” (Luke 19:10),
“Christ died for the ungodly” (Romans 5:6), and “Christ Jesus came into
the world to save sinners” (1 Timothy 1:15), there is no suggestion that
only a certain elect group among the “lost...ungodly...[and] sinners” is
intended. There is simply no qualifier.
Surely the idea that such general language actually specifies a select
“elect” would never be imagined without previous indoctrination into
Calvinism. Yet White sees in such verses “the particularity that is so
vehemently denied by the Arminian.”33
White argues, “Is it not the message of the Bible that Christ saves
sinners? By what warrant do we...change the meaning to ‘wants to
save’...?”
We, of course, could ask White, “What is the justification for changing
‘sinners’ to ‘some sinners’?”
He then quotes Paul’s declaration, “I am crucified with Christ...the Son
of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me” (Galatians 2:20), as proof
that “sinners” and “ungodly, et al., mean particular sinners.34 On the
contrary, Paul is giving a personal testimony of his own faith in Christ; it
cannot be used to place a limitation upon general nouns appearing
elsewhere. Nor does he say, “I alone...for me alone.” Every person who
has the same relationship with Christ as Paul did can make the same
statement: “the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me,” but
that does not mean He doesn’t love the world and did not die for all.
Naturally, at times the inspired writers of Scripture specifically applied
what they said to those who were saved: “the LORD hath laid on him the
iniquity of us all.… Christ died for our sins...that we might be made the
righteousness of God in him...who gave himself for our sins...hast
redeemed us to God by thy blood” (Isaiah 53:6; 1 Corinthians 15:3; 2
Corinthians 5:21; Galatians 1:4; Revelation 5:9, etc.). That fact does not in
any way nullify the many verses that just as clearly say that Christ died for
all.
Paul could not declare more clearly that Christ’s purpose in coming
into the world was to save sinners. That all sinners are not saved is not
because Christ did not pay for their sins, but because all do not accept
that payment. White argues that because all sinners don’t get saved, this
verse must therefore mean that the “sinners” Christ came to save could
only be the elect.
To sustain that argument, however, one would have to change the
meaning of hundreds of other Bible verses as well. Jesus himself declared,
“I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance”
(Matthew 9:13). Again, all sinners do not repent, so the Calvinist is
compelled to say that Christ only calls some sinners to repentance, or else
His call is in vain.
How could one perceive that meaning in this statement by Christ? Only
Calvinists find it there—and only because Calvinism requires it. But it
doesn’t follow, because even the elect often fail to repent as thoroughly
as they should. So to whatever extent they fail to give full honor and glory
and obedience to God, are they not frustrating God’s purposes just as
surely as the non-elect are said to do by rejecting the gospel? Is it really
God’s will that multitudes of Christians live such shallow and even
disobedient lives? Or is it because they so choose?
Repeatedly, the Bible states that God desires to rescue and bless all
Israel and that her refusal to repent prevents Him from so doing. He
sends His prophets day and night to plead with Israel to repent so He
won’t have to punish her. Yet God wants only some of Israel to repent?
Many other similar examples could be given to show that Calvinism turns
the loving and compassionate pleadings of God and Christ with sinners
into a sham.
God Has Two Wills in Conflict?
Nothing could be clearer in refuting Limited Atonement than Paul’s
declaration, “who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the
knowledge of the truth” (1 Timothy 2:4). Piper admits that Paul is saying
that “God does not delight in the perishing of the impenitent and that he
has compassion on all people.” But this sounds like “double-talk” if
Calvinism is true (i.e., if God only elects some to heaven and sends the
rest to hell), so he sets out to show that there are “‘two wills’ in
God...that God decrees one state of affairs while also willing and teaching
that a different state of affairs should come to pass.”35 This is double-talk.
John MacArthur, Jr., as we’ve seen, also tries to escape Paul’s clear
language and the message of all Scripture with the same astonishing idea
that God has two conflicting wills. Here is the full text of his explanation:
2:4 desires all men to be saved. The Gr. Word for “desires” is not that which
normally expresses God’s will of decree (His eternal purpose), but God’s will of
desire. There is a distinction between God’s desire and His eternal saving purpose,
which must transcend His desires. God does not want men to sin, He hates sin with
all His being (Pss. 5:4; 45:7); thus, He hates its consequences—eternal wickedness
in hell. God does not want people to remain wicked forever in eternal remorse and
hatred of Himself. Yet, God, for His own glory, and to manifest that glory in wrath,
chose to endure “vessels...prepared for destruction” for the supreme fulfillment of
His will (Rom 9:22). In His eternal purpose, He chose only the elect out of the
world (John 17:6) and passed over the rest, leaving them to the consequences of
their sin, unbelief, and rejection of Christ (cf. Rom. 1:18-32). Ultimately, God’s
choices are determined by His sovereign, eternal purpose, not His desires.36

How could God have “desires” contrary to His “sovereign, eternal

purpose”? That condition in a man is condemned as being double minded
(James 1:8, 4:8). How could God’s eternal purpose transcend His desire?
Nowhere does the Bible say that God has two conflicting wills. That would
be impossible for God “who worketh all things after the counsel of his
own will” (Ephesians 1:11)—a favorite verse of Calvinists.
To be double minded would be inconceivable for God. The Calvinist
insists that God could cause everyone to believe and be saved if He so
desired. Then how could God desire all to be saved, a desire that He could
cause to happen (according to Calvinism), yet not bring it to pass? Such a
suggestion is neither biblical nor rational.
MacArthur adds to his error by equating God’s alleged failure to fulfill
His desire for all to be saved with His failure to prevent all men from
sinning. Now we have a further problem. Either man has a genuine power
of choice, or all sin must be attributed to God. In fact, the latter is what
MacArthur implies and what leading Calvinists such as R. C. Sproul
declare, as we have amply seen.
The Calvinist is caught on the horns of a dilemma. How can he
maintain the position that God decrees and causes all, and yet exonerate
God for the wickedness and eternal punishment of the vast majority of
mankind? He falls back on the theory that God really doesn’t want this
state of affairs, and yet His eternal purpose and His decrees demand it.
What a contradiction!
The biblical solution is so simple: that God indeed loves man, doesn’t
want any to perish, and has provided full pardon, redemption, eternal
life, and the transformation of a new birth for all—but He has given man
the power of choice so that man could love his fellows and, above all, love
God. Sin, sorrow, and eternal judgment are thus on man’s shoulders (fruit
of his self-will), not on God’s. But the Calvinist could not allow freedom of
man’s will, for that would destroy TULIP.
“All Men” Means “All Classes of Men”?
Contradicting fellow Calvinist MacArthur, White follows John Calvin in
using a different ploy to get around this passage. He refers to other places
wherein the expression “all men” isn’t to be taken literally, such as
Ananias’s statement to Paul at his conversion, “For thou shalt be his
witness unto all men...” (Acts 22:15). White reasons:
Of course, Paul would not think that these words meant that he would witness of
Christ to every single individual human being on the planet. Instead, he would
have surely understood this to mean all kinds and races of men.... Paul speaks of
kinds of people in other places as well.… Greek and Jew, circumcised and
uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave and freeman....

So it is perfectly consistent with the immediate and broader context of Paul’s

writings to recognize this use of “all men” in a generic fashion.37

On the contrary, Paul would never have understood Ananias to mean

kinds and races of men. Obviously, “all kinds and races” is no more
reasonable than “all men.” Japanese? Australian aborigines? Siberian or
North American Indians? If that is what Ananias meant, he was a false
prophet. There are surely many kinds and races of men to whom Paul
never did witness during his lifetime on Earth.
What would any of us understand such a statement addressed to
ourselves to mean? Not all men everywhere (and certainly not all kinds)
but all those with whom we would come in contact, and for Paul that
would include through his testimony in Scripture as well. But what does
White’s strained interpretation of a statement by Ananias have to do with
Paul’s clear declaration that God wants “all men to be saved”?
White argues further that because Paul says prayer is to be made “for
all men; for kings and for all that are in authority,” he is referring to
“classes of men” and that the following phrase, “who will have all men to
be saved,” therefore actually means “who will have all classes of men to
be saved.”38 In fact, “kings...and all in authority” refers to only one class
of men—that is, rulers. White is only echoing Calvin here: “For the
apostle’s meaning here is simply that...God regards all men as being
equally worthy to share in salva on. But he is speaking of classes and not
of individuals, and his only concern is to include princes and foreign
na ons in this number.”39
Piper grasps at the same straw: “It is possible that careful exegesis of 1
Timothy 2:4 would lead us to believe that ‘God’s willing all persons to be
saved’ does not refer to every individual person in the world, but rather
to all sorts of persons....”40 The “careful exegesis,” which he suggests
would support this idea, is never revealed.
Calvinists love to quote Spurgeon for support, but here he accuses
them (as do we) of altering the plain meaning of the text. The great
preacher discussed this passage of Scripture in depth, and in the process,
contradicted his own Calvinism as he expressed it at other times:
What then? Shall we try to put another meaning into the text than that which it
fairly bears? I trow not.... You must, most of you, be acquainted with the general
method in which our older Calvinistic friends deal with this text. “All men” say they
“that is, some men”: as if the Holy Ghost could not have said “some men” if He
meant some men. “All men,” say they: “that is, some of all sorts of men”: as if the
Lord could not have said, “All sorts of men” if He had meant that. The Holy Ghost
by the apostle has written, “All men,” and unquestionably he means all men.... My
love of consistency with my own doctrinal views is not great enough to allow me
knowingly to alter a single text of Scripture.41

With Spurgeon, we ask again, if “all classes” is what the Holy Spirit
meant to convey, why was it not stated clearly? The truth is that the Holy
Spirit declared in unequivocal language that God is not willing for any
person to perish—and they tamper with God’s Word who put a Calvinist
interpretation upon it!
“Kings and all that are in authority” are mentioned as special subjects
of prayer for a definite reason: “that we may lead a quiet and peaceable
life....” Can anyone seriously imagine that Paul urged prayer for kings and
those in authority in order to convey to Timothy (and to us today) that all
classes of men were meant to be the recipients of the gospel: tradesmen,
sheep herders, soldiers, tinkers, tailors, robbers, etc.?
Wouldn’t Paul be fearful that, unless he specifically mentioned them
all, some despised classes such as prostitutes or slaves might be
overlooked by Timothy and by us today? No. Christ had already told His
disciples to “preach the gospel to every creature”! That Christ means
everyone, every Christian knew then and knows now.
As for 1 Timothy 2:6 (“who gave himself a ransom for all”), White
quotes R. K. Wright’s reference to “the meticulous demonstration by John
Gill that the Arminian exegesis of key passages (such as 2 Peter 3:9 and 1
Timothy 2:4–6) is fallacious.”42 Yet he fails to give us Gill’s refutation. Why
such effort to change the meaning of a clear text?
First Timothy 4:10 (“who is the Saviour of all men”) is another scripture
that states beyond doubt that Christ died for all. Yet White again has
nothing to say about it. MacArthur comments: “The point is that He is the
only Savior to whom anyone in the world can turn for forgiveness and
eternal life—and therefore all are urged to embrace Him as Savior.... In
setting forth His own Son as Savior of the world, God displays the same
kind of love to the whole world that was manifest in the Old Testament to
the rebellious Israelites. It is a sincere, tender-hearted, compassionate
love that offers mercy and forgiveness.”43
Can MacArthur be serious? This is typical “moderate Calvinist”
double-speak, in contrast to the frankness of those whom they call
“hyper-Calvinists” for not trying to hide the truth about Calvinism.
Sincere, tender-hearted, compassionate love that offers mercy and
forgiveness to those for whom both “moderates” and “hypers” agree
Christ didn’t die, who, as all Calvinists affirm, cannot respond to the offer
without being sovereignly regenerated (a privilege that “moderates”
agree is only for the elect), and who (again “moderates” agree) have been
predestined to eternal torment, a fact that nothing can change?! Whom
do the “moderates” think they are deceiving? Surely no one but
themselves.

1. Cited in James White, The Potter’s Freedom (Amityville, NY: Calvary Press Publishing,
2000), 222.
2. Ibid., 215.
3. John Piper, The Justification of God: An Exegetical and Theological Study of Romans 9:1–
23 (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2000), 203–204.
4. Herman Hoeksema, God’s Eternal Good Pleasure, ed. and rev., Homer C. Hoeksema
(Grandville, MI: Reformed Free Publishing Association, 1979), 24.
5. Len G. Broughton, Salvation and the Old Theology (London: Hodder and Stoughton, n. d.),
152.
6. H. H. Rowley, The Biblical Doctrine of Election (Cambridge, UK: Lutterworth Press,
1952), 45.
7. Samuel Fisk, Calvinistic Paths Retraced (Raleigh, NC: Biblical Evangelism Press, 1985),
81.
8. Laurence M. Vance, The Other Side of Calvinism (Pensacola, FL: Vance Publications, rev.
ed. 1999), 35.
9. Piper, Justification, 51.
10. Ibid., 56.
11. Ibid., 57.
12. Ibid., 61–62.
13. Martin Luther, The Bondage of the Will, trans. J. I. Packer and O. R. Johnston (Grand
Rapids, MI: Fleming H. Revell, 1957, 11th prtg. 1999), 222–29.
14. Ibid., 225.
15. Dick Sanford, Predestination and Election, ed. John R. Cross (self-published monograph, n.
d.), 11–12.
16. Roger T. Forster and V. Paul Marston, God’s Strategy in Human History (Bloomington,
MN: Bethany House Publishers, 1973), 75.
17. Edwin H. Palmer, the five points of calvinism (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, enlarged
ed., 20th prtg. 1999), 32–34, 105.
18. H. A. Ironside, Lectures on the Epistle to the Romans (Neptune, NJ: Loizeaux Brothers,
1926), 110, 116.
19. Arthur W. Pink, The Sovereignty of God (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 2nd prtg.
1986), 96.
20. White, Potter’s, 211, 221.
21. Piper, Justification, 155–81.
22. Ibid., 163.
23. Forster and Marston, Strategy, 75.
24. John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, trans. Henry Beveridge (Grand Rapids,
MI: Wm. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1998 ed.), V:xvii,14.
25. Forster and Marston, Strategy, 169–70.
26. White, Potter’s, 213.
27. Ibid., 213–14.
28. Hoeksema, Eternal, 60.
29. Piper, Justification, 204.
30. White, Potter’s, 194.
31. Ibid., 277.
32. Ibid., 274.
33. Ibid., 147.
34. Ibid., 247–49.
35. John Piper, “Are There Two Wills In God?” in Still Sovereign, ed. Thomas R. Schreiner
and Bruce A. Ware (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2000), 108–109.
36. John MacArthur, Author and General Editor, The MacArthur Study Bible (Nashville, TN:
Word Publishing, 1997), 1862.
37. White, Potter’s, 139–43.
38. Ibid.
39. John Calvin, Calvin’s New Testament Commentaries (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm B. Eerdmans
Publishing Co., 1994), 10:209.
40. Piper, “Two Wills,” Sovereign, 108.
41. C. H. Spurgeon, Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit, vol. 26, pages 49–52.
42. White, Potter’s, 25.
43. John MacArthur, Jr., The Love of God (Dallas, TX: Word Publishing, 1996), 116.
21—More Pivotal Scriptures
THE FOLLOWING are a few more of the scriptures that Calvinists
attempt to escape. Hebrews 2:9 (“that he by the grace of God should
taste death for every man”) is given the familiar Calvinist interpretation.
White quotes verse 17: “made like His brethren...a merciful and faithful
high priest...to make propitiation for the sins of the people.” He goes on
to “explain”:
What “people” is here in view? It is the “many sons” of 2:10, those He “sanctifies”
(2:11), “My brethren” (2:12), “the children God gave Me” (2:13).... In light of this
we understand the statement of Hebrews 2:9, “so that by the grace of God He
might taste death for everyone.” Another passage often cited without context by
Arminians yet defined so plainly in the text.1

Let us consider the context. Even when the writer uses “we,” he
doesn’t always refer only to believers: “How shall we escape, if we
neglect so great salvation...?” (Hebrews 2:3). Surely this is addressed to
all mankind, and not just to the elect, unless the Calvinist is willing to
admit that the elect can neglect their salvation and thus be lost. That
solemn admonition introduces this entire section of Hebrews 2, which
continues in the same vein into chapters 3 and 4. Readers are given
numerous warnings and exhortations to hold fast to the faith and not to
harden their hearts lest they perish like the children of Israel perished in
the wilderness through unbelief.
That this section contains references to those given to Christ by God
through His sacrifice does not warrant interpreting “taste death for every
man” to mean He tasted death only for the elect. Undoubtedly the entire
epistle is addressed to believers, as are all epistles and the entire Bible—
but much is also said both to and about the unsaved.
 All of Israel was not saved and many perished, so Israel could hardly
signify the Calvinist elect. The entire context surrounding Hebrews 2:9
contains some of the strongest verses Arminians cite in support of the
belief that one’s salvation can be lost, including the following:

• To day if ye will hear his voice, harden not your hearts....

(Hebrews 3:7–8)

• Take heed, brethren, lest there be in any of you an evil heart of

unbelief, in departing from the living God. (Hebrews 3:12)

• For we are made partakers of Christ, if we hold the beginning

of our confidence steadfast unto the end.... (Hebrews 3:14)

• Let us therefore fear, lest, a promise being left us of entering

into his rest, any of you should seem to come short of it.
(Hebrews 4:1)

• ...they to whom it [the gospel] was first preached entered not

in because of unbelief. (Hebrews 4:6)
Oddly enough, in his book written to refute Arminianism and to defend
Calvinism, White completely avoids these verses, which make up the
entire context of Hebrews 2:9. And he does so in the process of chiding
Arminians for avoiding the context!
What About 2 Peter 2:1?
Another important passage among those referred to briefly in the last
chapter is 2 Peter 2:1 (“there shall be false teachers...denying the Lord
that bought them”). Clearly these false teachers are lost—yet they have
been “bought” with the blood of Christ. This is a clear denial of Limited
Atonement. Though apparently accepted as “teachers” within the church,
they were never saved, as is the case with those to whom Jude refers who
have “crept in unawares…ungodly men...ordained to this condemnation”
(Jude 4). This passage, too, is completely neglected by White and most
other Calvinist apologists.
Very few Calvinists have attempted to deal with scriptures such as
Hebrews 10:29 and 2 Peter 2:1, telling of the destruction upon those who
despise the “blood of the covenant wherewith [they were] sanctified”
and “despise the Lord that bought them....” Sproul’s Geneva Study Bible
attempts to escape by simply ignoring the obvious contradictions of
Calvinism. Vance cites most of those who have made such attempts.2
Charles Bronson insists that it “approaches blasphemy to say that Christ shed His
precious blood for some and then, after all, they perished in hell.”3 Then what do
these verses say? Dabney dismisses both verses because: “The language of Peter,
and that of Hebrews...may receive an entirely adequate solution, without teaching
that Christ actually ‘bought’ or ‘sanctified’ any apostate, by saying that the
Apostles speak there ‘ad hominem.’”4

“Ad hominem”? What does that mean in this context?! There “may”
be a solution that explains away such clear language? If there is,
Calvinists haven’t yet been able to agree upon it.
Concerning those who Hebrews 10:29 says were sanctified, Beck
claims they were “sanctified but not saved.”5 But how can a Calvinist
admit that any except the elect have been sanctified, as MacArthur
clearly asserts in his Study Bible? That those described in both passages
are lost eternally cannot be questioned. Thus we are left with only two
choices: 1) they were once saved and lost their salvation; or 2) they were
never saved, yet were purchased and sanctified by Christ’s blood. Neither
choice fits Calvinism! No wonder, then, that Calvinists generally avoid
these
two passages.
Gill maintains that Christ himself “is said here to be sanctified”6—
which doesn’t fit the context at all. Owen makes them mere “professors
of the faith of the gospel,”7 with which we would agree—but that doesn’t
explain how these non-elect “mere professors” could be “sanctified” with
Christ’s blood. Other than a few isolated comments, most Calvinists are
strangely silent on these two passages. Even in his Hebrews commentary,
Pink avoids Hebrews 10:29.
Surely Limited Atonement must be renounced. John 3:16 means what
it says. Christ’s blood was shed for the sins of the entire world and, in that
sense, all are “sanctified.” As Paul writes in 1 Timothy 4:10, Christ “is the
savior of all men” inasmuch as salvation has been purchased for all, even
for those who reject Him; and He is the savior “specially of those that
believe,” because they have believed the gospel, received Christ, and are
thus saved eternally.
Understanding 2 Peter 3:9
With regard to 2 Peter 3:9, White refers again to John Gill’s supposedly
amazing but unrevealed refutation.8 Twice he suggests that the
“Reformed view” of this passage may be “a more consistent
interpretation” than the one Geisler offers, but he fails to reveal it.9 Next,
he promises that “an exegetical interpretation of the passage” is
coming.10 Then we are told that Geisler fails to give “as meaningful and
thorough a discussion” of the passage as “the Reformed exegesis”—yet
neither Geisler’s nor the “Reformed exegesis” is explained.11
Finally, we are given the Calvinistic interpretation of “The Lord is not
slack...but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish,
but that all should come to repentance.” White declares that “the
passage is not speaking about salvation as its topic.” On that basis, he
summarily rules out the possibility that Peter means what he states so
clearly.
In fact, the passage speaks of a number of things: the last days;
scoffers who would arise ridiculing the idea that Christ would return in
judgment; a reminder of the flood that destroyed the world of that day,
and that the present world will be destroyed by fire; that the Day of the
Lord will come like a thief; that the entire universe will be dissolved; that
we therefore ought to live godly lives; that unstable and unlearned
persons twist the meaning of Paul’s epistles; and finally there is an
exhortation to keep from error and to “grow in grace and in the
knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.”
Since Peter deals with so much in this final chapter of his epistle, there
is no reason salvation could not be included. Surely he can address both
saved and unsaved in this verse. If not, we have a serious contradiction.
The phrase “longsuffering to us-ward” cannot be addressed to only the
elect. It must include all mankind. If not, the phrase that follows (“not
willing that any should perish”) must apply to only the elect. But the latter
can only mean all of mankind, since it refers to a perishing that surely
does not imperil the elect.
There are only two possibilities: the reference is to 1) perishing under
the penalty of sin or escaping that penalty by repenting; or 2) perishing in
the fire that will destroy the world or escaping it. Certainly, perishing in
the world-destroying fire of God’s judgment is no more applicable to the
elect than perishing under the penalty of sin. John Owen argued, “See,
then, of whom the apostle is here speaking.... Such as had received ‘great
and precious promises’...whom he calls ‘beloved’.... The text is clear, that
it is all and only the elect whom he would not have to perish.”12 Likewise,
John Gill writes, “It is not true that God is not willing that any one
individual of the human race should perish, since he has made and
appointed the wicked for the day of evil.... Nor is it his will that all
men...should come to repentance, since he withholds from many both
the means and grace of repentance....”13
Isn’t Gill directly contradicting what God so clearly and repeatedly
expresses of His desire for all to be saved? For example, the following is
so unequivocal that Gill’s contradiction thereof seems nothing short of
blasphemy: “As I live, saith the Lord GOD, I have no pleasure in the death
of the wicked; but that the wicked turn from his way and live: turn ye,
turn ye from your evil ways; for why will ye die, O house of Israel?”
(Ezekiel 33:11). There is no way to define “the wicked” and “house of
Israel” as the elect!
Though a Calvinist, John Murray, former Westminster Seminary
professor, whom Cornelius Van Til called “a great exegete of the Word of
God,”14 declared, “God does not wish that any men should perish. His
wish is rather that all should enter upon life eternal by coming to
repentance. The language in this part of the verse is so absolute that it is
highly unnatural to envisage Peter as meaning merely that God does not
wish that any believers should perish....”15 Writing in the second century,
Justin Martyr suggests that God is delaying the Last Judgment because “in
His foreknowledge He sees that some will be saved by repentance, some
who are, perhaps not yet in existence.”16
Are the Elect in Danger of Perishing?
Let us assume that White is right and the subject is not salvation.
“Perish,” therefore, must refer to perishing in the fire of God’s judgment
that will, in the Day of the Lord, destroy the universe. That certainly is a
valid possibility for unbelievers, but White claims the “any” and “all” refer
to the elect. Now we have a new problem: how could there be any
danger that the elect might perish in the final fire of God’s judgment—
and how would His longsuffering toward them prevent such an end?
White argues that since the epistle is addressed to believers it can only
have reference to believers throughout. One of many letters received on
this subject argues: “As in all of the epistles, 2 Peter is addressed to the
elect.… Peter is not speaking to mankind in general here....”17 We have
shown, logically and biblically, that this argument, used frequently by
Calvinists in other instances as well, is unfounded. The fact that believers
are being addressed is no reason that Peter cannot make a statement
about God’s desire for the whole world, including the fate of unbelievers.
 Although Peter is not speaking to mankind in general, but only to the
elect, he is certainly not speaking only about the elect. Is it the elect who
will be the last-days scoffers? Was it the elect who perished in the flood?
Is it the elect who will perish in the coming fire that will destroy the world
and the entire universe? Surely not. Nor could those to whom God is
longsuffering, lest they perish in coming judgment, be the elect.
Moreover, salvation is undoubtedly the topic of at least this verse,
since it refers to the repentance that God desires for all; and surely a
repentance unto salvation is the only means of deliverance from the
wrath to come. But the elect, being already saved, don’t need to repent
unto salvation, so how could “any should perish...all should come to
repentance” refer to them?
Furthermore, the doctrine of Irresistible Grace claims that God can
cause anyone to repent and believe the gospel at any time—so why
would longsuffering be mentioned, if reference is to the elect? Whether
the subject is salvation or not, Calvinism is in trouble. In spite of the
contradictions we have just pointed out, the only escape is to insist that
this does not refer to all mankind but only to the elect. Now we are faced
with one more redundancy: God is not willing that any of those He has
sovereignly elected not to perish should perish? And He is longsuffering
to accomplish that goal? Such arguments are not sustainable.
The only consistent understanding of this verse is that the “us-ward” in
the phrase “longsuffering to us-ward” is like an editorial “we” that
includes everyone. It is true that in the only other place this expression is
found in the New Testament, it clearly refers to the saved. But one use
doesn’t make a rule. “Us-ward” introduces the statements about
“longsuffering” and “perish,” which could only apply to the world at large.
Peter is referring to the destruction of the universe from which the
elect have been delivered. The ungodly are the ones who will perish. The
only consistent understanding of the verse is that God does not want
anyone to perish, and, as He has done with Israel, is longsuffering in
pleading with them and waiting upon them to repent and be saved—as
all Scripture declares.
What About 1 Timothy 4:10?
Some further attention must be given to Paul’s declaration that Christ
“is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe.” Surely “those
that believe” must be the elect for whom Christ is the Saviour in a special
way not true of “all men” in general. Thus “all men” can’t possibly mean
the elect. White omits reference to this passage, as do many other
Calvinists.
There are, of course, similar contrasts made elsewhere in Scripture.
Paul exhorts prayer “for all men...that we may lead a quiet and peaceable
life...” (1 Timothy 2:1–2). Surely the “we” who are to pray must be
Christians, and the “all men” must be everyone else. Again Paul writes,
“Let us do good unto all men, especially unto...the household of faith”
(Galatians 6:10). True believers must be the household of faith, again set
in contrast to “all men.”
Not only White and MacArthur, as we’ve seen, but other Calvinists
adopt astonishing reasoning in order to escape the plain teaching of
Scripture. Gary North explains that “Christ is indeed the Savior of all
people prior to the day of judgment.”18 “Savior” in what way? North
doesn’t explain, nor can he. Calvin is no less irrational in his claim that
Savior simply means that Christ shows “kindness” to all men.19 Where is
“Savior” ever used to signify “kindness”? And what kindness would bless
in this life and predestine to torment for eternity as Calvinism teaches?
Calvin adds that by “Savior” the passage only means (for the non-elect)
that Christ “guards and preserves.”20 Pink and Beck declare, somewhat
like Calvin, that “Savior of all men” simply means that Christ is the
“Preserver” of all men. Temporarily? Preserve from or to what?
 In what way does God “preserve” those whom He has predestined to
eternal damnation? And what could be meant by God’s “kindness” to
those He predestined before their birth to the Lake of Fire and from
whom He withholds the salvation He could give them if He so desired?
We are appalled at such outrageous efforts to escape the plain teaching
of Scripture—and we are offended for our God at such boldness in
perverting His Word and character!
Sproul explains: “Savior of all men. The general call to repentance and
salvation is extended to all people” (emphasis in orginal).21 How can
salvation be “extended” to those for whom Christ did not die? And how
can that supposed “call...to salvation” make Christ the Savior of those
who are totally depraved and unable to respond to this call, and who
have already been predestined to eternal damnation? Calvinism seems to
pervert not only the Bible but men’s minds, so that they are able to
pretend that obvious contradictions make sense.
MacArthur goes into more depth in an attempt to remove the
contradiction:
Yet, the Gr. word translated “especially” must mean that all men enjoy God’s
salvation in some way like those who believe enjoy His salvation. The simple
explanation is that God is the Savior of all men, only in a temporal sense, while of
believers in an eternal sense...all men experience some earthly benefits from the
goodness of God. Those benefits are: 1) common grace...God’s goodness shown to
all mankind universally...showering him with temporal blessings...; 2) compassion
—the broken-hearted love of pity God shows to undeserving, unregenerate
sinners...; 3) admonition...God constantly warns sinners of their fate,
demonstrating the heart of a compassionate Creator who has no pleasure in the
death of the wicked (Ezek 18:30-32; 33:11); 4) the gospel invitation—salvation in
Christ is indiscriminately offered to all....22

Far from removing the scandalous contradiction, MacArthur only

emphasizes it by accurately pointing out what the Bible teaches. That God
has “broken-hearted love of pity” for and “constantly warns sinners of
their fate” and that “salvation in Christ is indiscriminately offered to all” is
the clear teaching of Scripture. But this is the very antithesis of Calvinism,
which teaches that Christ died only for the elect and salvation is only for
them.
MacArthur himself declares that “God chose only the elect out of the
world”23 and that “a corpse could no sooner come out of a grave and
walk”24 than for the non-elect even to hear the warnings and offers of
salvation, let alone to respond in faith. Then how could salvation sincerely
be “offered” to the non-elect? What deep holes Calvinists dig for
themselves in trying to reconcile their theory with Scripture!
It is an insult to the God who is love to say that giving temporal
blessings on this earth to those whom He predestined to eternal torment
in the Lake of Fire before they were born is “God’s salvation in some
way...”! And it is a cruel mockery to tell those for whom Christ didn’t even
die that God is their Savior! Sproul and MacArthur very well know what
Paul means by salvation—it isn’t something temporary for this life only!
Grasping at Straws
The final verse listed previously, among those disproving Limited
Atonement (though we could cite many others), is 1 John 4:14: “the
Father sent the Son to be the Saviour of the world.” This is one more
scripture that White avoids (as does MacArthur in his study Bible).
Instead, White focuses attention upon those passages that clearly refer to
the blessings God has planned for His elect.
It is only to be expected that Paul and other inspired writers of
Scripture would remind the redeemed that Christ died for them and that
the Father delivered Christ to the cross for the sake of the elect. Such
passages, however, as we have seen, do not in any way imply, much less
declare, that Christ’s death was only for them and not also for the sins of
the whole world. If so, these passages would contradict the many others
that declare in the plainest language that Christ did indeed die for all. But
these are the only places to which the Calvinist can turn in positive
support of his argument. Thus White tells us:
The Father did not spare, or hold back, His very own Son, but delivered Him over
for us all [Romans 8:32]. The word “delivered over” refers to the giving of the Son
in sacrifice. The [same] Greek word is used in this context by Paul, as in Ephesians
5:2 (where Christ gives Himself up for us), and 5:25 (where Christ gives Himself for
the Church). It is also used in Matthew 27:26 of the delivering up of Jesus to be
crucified. The Father delivered over the Son to die upon the cross for us.... The
Father gave the Son in our place, in the place of His elect people.

In light of the tremendous price paid for our redemption in Christ, Paul then asks,
“how will He (the Father) not also with Him (Christ) freely give us all things?” To
whom is Paul speaking? God’s elect. Surely these words could not be spoken of
every single human for two reasons: Christ is not “given” to the person who
endures God’s wrath in eternity, and, God obviously does not give “all things” to
those who spend eternity in hell...this is an empty passage [if it] says God offers all
things, but very few actually obtain them. No, it is clear: God gives “all things” to
those for whom He gave His Son as a sacrifice. That sacrifice was for them; it was
made in their place. (Emphasis in original)25

Of course. Yet such passages as these have nothing to do with offering

salvation to the world and, therefore, do not contradict the clear biblical
teaching in many other places that Christ indeed died for all and that
salvation is offered to all. That the elect should praise God for giving
Christ to die for them (and that the Bible specifically reminds the elect of
what Christ has done for them) does not in any way mean that Christ died
only for them.
That Calvinists must grasp at such straws only exposes the bankruptcy
of their theory. If the fact that the redeemed are grateful to Christ for
dying for their sins proves that He died only for them, then the same
reasoning would establish that Christ loved only Paul and died only for
him. After all, Paul gratefully declares, “I am crucified with Christ...the Son
of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me” (Galatians 2:20).
Hiding the Truth
MacArthur quotes an entire sermon that was preached in Scotland on
June 7, 1724 by Calvinist pastor Thomas Boston on the text, 1 John 4:14.
The following excerpt is sufficient to reveal the twisted thinking that is
required to justify Calvinism in the face of scriptures that clearly declare
His loving desire for all mankind to be saved:
It is the great truth and testimony of the gospel that the Father hath sent his Son
Jesus Christ in the character of Savior of the world.... There is nothing wrong in the
world but what there is a remedy to be found in Christ for [it].... The Savior of the
world is certainly able to save the world; since He was sent of God in that
character.... [Character but not actual...able to save but doesn’t?]

Our Lord Jesus is the actual Savior of the elect only, in whose room and stead only
He died upon the cross.... Our Lord Jesus Christ is the official Savior, not of the
elect only, but of the world of mankind indefinitely...God, looking on the ruined
world of mankind, has constituted and appointed Jesus Christ His Son Savior of the
world. Christ has Heaven’s patent for this office, and wherever the gospel comes,
He is held up as Savior by office.... So the matter lies here: in this official sense,
Christ is Savior of the whole world...any of mankind’s sinners may lay hold on this
salvation.... [Office...official sense...all sinners may lay hold of what is actual for the
elect alone? What perverse double talk!]

If it were not so that Christ is Savior of the world, He could not warrantably be
offered with His salvation to the world indefinitely; but to the elect only. If He
were not commissioned to the office of Savior of all men, it would be no more
appropriate to call all men to trust Him as Savior any more than He could be
offered lawfully to fallen angels....

How can you receive Him and lay hold of Him? Only by faith. Only by believing on
Him, by being convinced of your sin and hopeless state, and by desiring to be
saved from both. Believe Christ is your Savior by His Father’s appointment; and so
wholly trust on Him as a crucified Savior, for His whole salvation, on the ground of
God’s faithfulness in His Word. [The non-elect are supposed to believe...lay hold of
and receive what God has reserved for the elect alone? What mockery!] (Emphasis
in original)26

Here we see very clearly the schizophrenia into which the “moderate”
Calvinist inevitably falls in his effort to distance himself from those he
calls “hyper-Calvinists.” The latter frankly admit that Calvinism teaches
that God doesn’t love everyone, never intended everyone to be saved,
and has predestined all but the elect to eternal torment. Under the cover
of much “moderate” verbiage, Thomas Boston tries to deny this fact—as
does MacArthur, who quotes him for support. Yet, Boston admits that
Christ is the “actual Savior of the elect only [and] died only for them.” But
to hide Calvinism’s denial of “Saviour of all men,” and its clear
contradiction of God’s love as the Bible presents it, Boston perversely
declares that Christ has “the character of Savior of the world,” has this
office and is therefore the “official Savior of all mankind.”
How Christ could be the official Savior of all and yet die for only the
elect and never intend to save anyone else is not explained. Somehow, to
assign to Christ the character of Savior of the world and to give him the
title of official Savior of mankind allows Him not to provide salvation for
everyone after all—and yet allows the Calvinist to pretend that no such
limitation applies.
This is madness! And yet, this is the basis upon which the “moderate”
Calvinist solemnly swears that he believes that God loves the whole world
and wants the entire world to be saved and gave Christ to save all
mankind. And we are supposed to believe that “moderates” mean what
the Bible means, and what non-Calvinists mean by the same words!
Many non-Calvinists are deceived by such subterfuge, which moves
them closer to becoming pseudo-Calvinists eventually. And the gospel? Of
course, Boston cynically urges everyone to receive Christ by faith and says
it is their own fault if they don’t. He doesn’t want to put an obstacle in
the way of their faith by admitting that, according to Calvinism, faith is a
gift of God given only to the elect after God has sovereignly regenerated
them. But his reluctance to admit it, doesn’t change the fact that this is
the teaching of Calvinism. And tragically, learning this doctrine after the
fact has been the undoing of many when they begin to examine
themselves to determine whether they are actually among the elect.
God’s Infinite Love Expressed through Paul
 Limited Atonement cannot be supported from the Bible without
avoiding many passages and adopting special interpretations for many
others. Calvinists’ arguments about the blood of Christ being wasted if
shed for many who would not believe are specious. Then God wasted His
time and the time and effort of His prophets who called, without success,
upon millions of Jews for centuries to repent. From the cross Christ cried,
“Father, forgive them,” concerning those who were crucifying and
mocking Him. Was He wasting His breath, since many if not most of those
taunting and crucifying Him would never repent and thus not be
forgiven? And how could He ask His Father to forgive them except on the
basis of His blood, shed for their sin? But if that was shed only for the
elect, how could Christ sincerely ask forgiveness for any non-elect?
Paul declares, in evident agony of soul, “I say the truth in Christ,... I
have great heaviness and continual sorrow in my heart...for my brethren,
my kinsmen according to the flesh” (Romans 9:1–3). He even wishes
himself accursed of God if that would save the Jews. Surely, it is God’s
love for the lost that motivates Paul.
Yet Calvinism insists that God, who is love, has predestined billions to
hell, while Paul, who surely is in touch with God, agonizes for their
salvation! Is Paul more loving than God? Whence such love? Would it not
be blasphemy for Paul to desire the salvation of those whom God does
not desire to save? On the contrary, we are told that God desires “all men
to be saved...”! Rob Zins writes to this author:
Finally, you raise some philosophical problems with the demand of God that all
men everywhere should repent and believe and the corresponding will of God
which has determined that only some will be given the ability to do so. This is a
difficult issue to face. But it is no more difficult to face than all men being
condemned by the sin of one man, Adam. It is no more difficult to face than the
fact of sin, corruption, evil and all other forms of sin allowed to continue when
God could end them all.27

On the contrary, there is a huge difference between allowing men to

sin and causing them to sin. There is a vast distinction between justly
sentencing to eternal torment those who continue to defy God (rejecting
the salvation He has graciously and lovingly provided for them) and in
predestining them to the Lake of Fire without providing or offering any
hope whatsoever.
As already noted, having given man the power of choice, God could
end all evil only by destroying all men. Even “saved sinners” sometimes
sin (1 John 1:9). But God is loving and longsuffering, calling upon men to
repent, turn to Him, and receive the salvation He offers. Even though all
sin and are justly condemned, God has provided salvation and made it
available to all who will believe. He cannot force it upon anyone,
however, without destroying man as a moral agent capable of loving and
being loved. Yet Calvinism unbiblically claims that God could save
everyone but refuses to do so because it is His “good pleasure” to damn
multitudes.
Continually in Scripture, Christ and men of God from Moses to Paul
expressed a fervent desire for the salvation of sinners. Obviously, not all
are going to believe, yet the desire is sincerely expressed that they would
do so. Calvinists change the straightforward language of such scriptures,
even denying that God loves all in spite of the numerous clear statements
that He does—while proposing a sham love that offers temporary “grace”
to those it has predestined to eternal doom.
Yes, Christ in His prayer to the Father for His own says, “I pray not for
the world” (John 17:9). That does not, however, nullify the Father’s and
Christ’s love for the world, nor does it nullify the fact that He died for the
sins of the whole world. This is not a prayer of salvation for the lost whom
Christ repeatedly invited to come to Him, but a special prayer only for
believers.
Unquestionably, there are difficult verses dealing with the whole
subject of our salvation. They must be interpreted in the context of all of
Scripture. In the final analysis, what we believe about God himself will
determine our understanding of God’s Holy Word.
The God of the Bible is love, His tender mercies are over all His works,
He doesn’t want anyone to be lost, and He so loved the world that He
gave Christ to pay the penalty of sin for every man. Therefore, grace could
not be irresistible or all would be saved—the fourth point of Calvinism, to
which we now come.

1. James White, The Potter’s Freedom (Amityville, NY: Calvary Press Publishing, 2000),
246–47.
2. Laurence M. Vance, The Other Side of Calvinism (Pensacola, FL: Vance Publications, rev.
ed. 1999), 455–456.
3. Charles W. Bronson, The Extent of the Atonement (Pasadena, TX: Pilgrim Publications,
1992), 45.
4. Robert L. Dabney, Systematic Theology (Carlisle, PA: The Banner of Truth Trust, 2nd ed.,
1985), 525.
5. Frank B. Beck, The Five Points of Calvinism (Lithgow, Australia: Covenanter Press, 2nd
Australian ed. 1986), 53.
6. John A. Gill, The Cause of God and Truth (Paris, AR: The Baptist Standard Bearer, 1992),
58.
7. John Owen, The Works of John Owen, ed. William H. Goold (Carlisle, PA: The Banner of
Truth Trust, 3rd prtg. 1978), X:365–66.
8. White, Potter’s, 25.
9. Ibid., 135–36.
10. Ibid., 137.
11. Ibid., 143.
12. Owen, Works, X: 348–49.
13. Gill, Cause, (Paris, AR: The Baptist Standard Bearer, 1980), 62–63.
14. Quoted in Iain H. Murray, The Life of John Murray (Carlisle, PA: The Banner of Truth
Trust, 1984), 93.
15. John Murray, The Free Offer of the Gospel (n. p., n. d.), 24.
16. St. Justin Martyr, Ch. 28 of The First and Second Apologies, Ancient Christian Writers, No.
 56 (New York: Paulist Press, 1997).
17. From England to Dave Hunt, dated September 8, 2000. On file.
18. Gary North, Dominion and Common Grace (Tyler, TX: Institute for Christian Economics,
1987), 44.
19. John Calvin, Commentary on the Gospel of John, The Comprehensive John Calvin
Collection (Ages Digital Library, 1998) op. Cit., 3:245.
20. Ibid.
21. R. C. Sproul, General Editor, New Geneva Study Bible (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson
Publishers, 1995), 1913.
22. John MacArthur, Author and General Editor, The MacArthur Study Bible (Nashville, TN:
Word Publishing, 1997), 1867.
23. MacArthur, Study Bible, 1862.
24. John MacArthur Jr., Saved Without A Doubt - MacArthur Study Series (Colorado Springs:
Chariot Victor Books, 1992), 58.
25. White, Potter’s, 236–38.
26. John MacArthur, Jr., The Love of God (Dallas, TX: Word Publishing, 1996), 199-214.
27. Robert M. Zins to Dave Hunt, August 24, 2000. On file.
22—Irresistible Grace
IN THE DOCTRINE of Irresistible Grace, we find once again the
pervasive influence of Augustine. Boettner informs us, “This cardinal truth
of Christianity [Irresistible Grace] was first clearly seen by Augustine.”1
Warfield says Augustine “recovered [it] for the Church.”2 Likewise, some
Baptists agree that “Augustine may be regarded as the father of the
soteriological system [called] ‘Calvinism.’”3 Sproul even says,
“Augustinianism is presently called Calvinism or Reformed Theology.”4
Shedd declares:
Augustine accounts for the fact that some men are renewed and some are not, by
the unconditional decree (decretum absolutum), according to which God
determines to select from the fallen mass of mankind (massa perditionis), the
whole of whom are alike guilty and under condemnation, a portion upon whom he
bestows renewing grace, and to leave the remainder to their own self-will and the
operation of law and justice.5

Having once taught free will and that God desired to save all mankind,6
Augustine later changed his view. Faith became something that God
irresistibly bestowed upon the elect without their having believed
anything or having made any decision or even having been aware that
they were being regenerated.7 By such reasoning, man (being by nature
dead in sin) can’t even hear the gospel—much less respond to the
pleadings of Christ. Irresistible Grace is necessitated by this unbiblical
premise, to which Calvinists cling in spite of the fact that our Lord calls to
all, “Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give
you rest.... If any man thirst, let him come unto me, and drink” (Matthew
11:28; John 7:37), etc. Apparently all, even the spiritually dead, can hear
and come and drink, as other passages make very clear. Dave Breese
writes, “If grace were irresistible, one fails to understand even the reason
for preaching the gospel....”8 Certainly, it would be absurd for God to
plead with men to repent and believe, if they cannot unless He
irresistably causes them to do so.
The Serious Consequences of Sovereignty Misapplied
To recap Calvinism up to this point: because of Total Depravity, those
whom God has unconditionally elected and predestined to eternal life
and for whom alone Christ died are first sovereignly regenerated without
faith, understanding, or even knowing it is happening to them. Thereafter
(some would say simultaneously) the grace to believe on Christ as Savior
and Lord is irresistibly imposed upon the newly regenerated elect, whom
God from eternity past has predetermined to save, and they are given
faith to believe on Christ. Piper says that man must first
...be born of God. Then, with the new nature of God, he immediately receives
Christ. The two acts (regeneration and faith) are so closely connected that in
experience we cannot distinguish them...new birth is the effect of irresistible
grace...an act of sovereign creation....9

Irresistible Grace is essential in the Calvinist theory of salvation. No

one can resist God’s saving grace, irresistibly imposed upon those whom
He has predestined to eternal life. As Piper says, “[T]here can be no
salvation without the reality of irresistible grace. If we are dead in our
sins, totally unable to submit to God, then we will never believe in Christ
unless God overcomes our rebellion.”10
Sadly, this doctrine, too—like all of TULIP—leads to a denial of God’s
love, mercy, and grace as revealed in Scripture. Piper declares, “God is
sovereign and can overcome all resistance when he wills...irresistible
grace refers to the sovereign work of God to overcome the rebellion of
our hearts and bring us to faith in Christ so that we can be saved.”11 If
that were true, God could have irresistibly imposed grace upon Adam and
Eve and spared mankind the suffering and evil that resulted from their
rebellion. Why didn’t He? What love is this?
 Does God actually love and have compassion not for the world (as the
Bible says) but for a limited elect only (as Calvinists insist)? Piper says God
chose to save the elect alone by irresistibly imposing His grace upon them
and He predestined the remainder of mankind to eternal torment. Isn’t
such a scenario abhorrent to every conscience? And doesn’t it malign the
God of the Bible, whose “tender mercies are over all his works” (Psalm
145:9) and who “would have all men to be saved” (1 Timothy 2:4)?
If, as the Bible declares, God truly loves all and has given them the
power of choice, then the lost are responsible for their own doom
through willfully rejecting the salvation God lovingly and freely offers in
Christ. Yet Hodge declares, “According to the Augustinian scheme, the
non-elect have all the advantages and opportunities of securing their
salvation....”12 What advantages and opportunities for salvation do those
have from whom God withholds the regeneration and irresistible grace
without which Calvinists say no one can believe unto salvation, for whom
Christ didn’t die, and whom He predestined to eternal doom before they
were born? This is mockery! Yet Sproul, Piper, MacArthur, and other
leading “moderate” Calvinists of today persist in this obvious
contradiction!
Furthermore, how can such persons be justly held accountable?
Should a paraplegic be faulted for failing to become a world-class
gymnast, or a man for failing to bear children or to breastfeed the
children his wife bears? Absurd! Yet we are told that God’s perfect justice
operates in this fashion. Tragically, Calvinism’s misrepresentation of God
has caused many to turn away from God as from a monster.
Allegedly, God has created all men incapable of choosing to seek Him
and of believing the gospel. The only hope is in God himself sovereignly
regenerating the sinner—but He only does this for a limited elect and
damns the rest in order to prove His sovereignty and justice. Such is the
message of TULIP. Considering himself one of the elect, Piper finds great
joy in TULIP and expresses no regrets for the predestined fate of those for
whom this doctrine could only cause eternal anguish:
We need to rethink our Reformed doctrine of salvation so that every limb and
every branch in the tree is coursing with the sap of Augustinian delight. We need
to make plain that total depravity is not just badness, but blindness...and
unconditional election means that the completeness of our joy in Jesus was
planned for us before we ever existed [never mind that eternal doom was also
planned for others]; and that limited atonement is the assurance that
indestructible joy in God is infallibly secured for us [the elect for whom alone
Christ died] by the blood of the covenant; and irresistible grace is the commitment
and power of God’s love...the perseverance of the saints is the almighty work of
God to keep us....13 (Emphasis in original)

What Love, Compassion, and Grace Is This?

The elect alone enjoy the “Augustinian delight” of having been chosen
to salvation. What delight is there for those who, before they came into
existence, were already predestined to eternal torment? Nor can the
Calvinist have the slightest sympathy for those whom God has, for His
good pleasure, doomed eternally.
In contrast, consider the Bible’s repeated assurance that God’s love
and grace toward all mankind are boundless and eternal. Here are just a
few scriptures among many to that effect:

• For the Lord your God is gracious and merciful, and will not
turn away his face from you, if ye return unto him. (2
Chronicles 30:9)

• Thou art a God ready to pardon, gracious and merciful,

slow to anger, and of great kindness...for thou art a gracious
and merciful God. (Nehemiah 9:17, 31)

• But thou, O Lord, art a God full of compassion, and gracious,

longsuffering, and plenteous in mercy and truth. (Psalm 86:15)
 • The Lord is gracious and full of compassion. (Psalms 111:4;
112:4; 145:8, etc.)

• And rend your heart, and not your garments, and turn unto
the Lord your God: for he is gracious and merciful.... (Joel 2:13)

• For I knew that thou art a gracious God, and merciful,...of great
kindness. (Jonah 4:2)
Like hundreds of others, each of these scriptures is addressed to all of
Israel, most of whom rejected God’s grace. Never is there any hint that
God’s merciful compassion extends to less than all. “We love him because
he first loved us” (1 John 4:19) declares that our love is in response to
God’s love. Nowhere does Scripture indicate that we love God, as Piper
exults, because we are among a select group whom He predestined to
salvation and sovereignly regenerated.
What about those allegedly not chosen to salvation, whom God never
intended to save, for whom Christ did not die, and for whom there is no
hope? Is it not sadistic to command them to love God? Yet this very first
of the Ten Commandments, like all of them, is a command to all. How
could the non-elect love God when God doesn’t love them? Such teaching
dishonors God and can only cause resentment toward Him.
Sadly, in reading scores of books by Calvinists, one finds much that
extols God’s sovereignty but almost nothing of His love. Packer admits,
“In Reformation days as since, treatments of God’s love in election were
often…preempted by wrangles of an abstract sort about God’s
sovereignty in reprobation.”14 What else has Calvinism to offer!?
As Piper declares, “The doctrine of irresistible grace means that God is
sovereign and can overcome all resistance when He wills.”15
The Christian is to love others with God’s love as his strength and
example, for “love is of God” (1 John 4:7), “...the love of God is shed
abroad in our hearts by the Holy Ghost, which is given unto us” (Romans
5:5), “Ye yourselves are taught of God to love one another” (1
Thessalonians 4:9).
God’s love flowing through the believer has a practical effect: “But
whoso hath this world’s good, and seeth his brother have need, and
shutteth up his bowels of compassion from him, how dwelleth the love of
God in him?” (1 John 3:17). We are commanded to love our enemies and
to do good to all, even to those who hate us (Matthew 5:44; Luke 6:35,
etc.). How odd that God’s love dwelling in us would unfailingly meet
through us the needs of others—yet God himself sees billions in the direst
of need and refuses to help them—indeed, damns those He could save.
Surely this is not the God portrayed in the Bible!
A Longsuffering God
Sovereignty in Calvinism, as we have seen, is such that God is behind
every emotion and act of every individual, causing each sin and causing
each impulse of “love.” Supposedly the heart of man is “made willing” in
order to love God. But “made willing” is an oxymoron. One can be
persuaded or convinced but not made willing, because the will must be
willing in and of itself.
Again we are compelled to ask, “What love is this?” If Calvin’s God can
be said to love at all, it is with a love that allegedly can be imposed upon
anyone and man’s response is by that same imposition. But such is not
the nature of love.
By contrast, in the Bible God’s infinite love, grace, and mercy are
demonstrated powerfully in His dealings with Israel. Moreover, the
rejection and hatred against Him by disobedient Israel cause God’s true
love to shine all the brighter. Though himself a Calvinist, D. A. Carson
expresses the contradiction of Calvinism clearly:
The entire prophecy of Hosea is an astonishing portrayal of the love of God.
Almighty God is likened to a betrayed and cuckolded husband. But the intensity of
 God’s passion for the covenant nation comes to a climax in Hosea 11. “When Israel
was a child,” God declares, “I loved him, and out of Egypt I called my son: (11:1)....”
But the more God loved Israel, the more they drifted away. God was the one who
cared for them...the one who “led them with cords of love and human kindness”
(11:4). Yet they... “Sacrificed to Baals and loved idolatry.” So God promises
judgment. They will return to “Egypt” and Assyria, i.e., to captivity and slavery,
“because they refuse to repent” (11:5). Their cities will be destroyed (11:6).... Thus
it sounds as if implacable judgment has been pronounced. But then it is almost as
if God cannot endure the thought. In an agony of emotional intensity, God cries,

“How can I give you up, Ephraim?

How can I hand you over, Israel?...
My heart is changed within me;
all my compassion is aroused.
I will not carry out my fierce anger....
For I am God, and not man...
I will not come in wrath....
I will settle them in their homes,”
declares the LORD.16

Yet if Calvinism be true, these pleadings are a sham. The elect don’t
need them, and the non-elect can’t heed them. The totally depraved who
are elected to salvation must be regenerated and infused with Irresistible
Grace, while the rest of mankind are damned without remedy. Why
pretend this love and concern when man has no choice and God can
irresistibly make anyone do whatever He wants?
Supposedly, to save only a select elect and to damn the rest was
necessary to prove God’s sovereignty and justice, and will eternally be to
His greater glory. Obviously, however, God need not damn anyone in
order to prove either His sovereignty or justice. If it is not a threat to
God’s sovereignty to save the elect, neither would it be for Him to save a
million more, 100 million more—or more loving yet, to save all mankind.
Scores of Bible passages leave no doubt that God loves and desires to
bless not just an elect who will be redeemed out of Israel, but all of Israel
(and therefore all mankind as well), including those who refuse His love
and gracious offer of blessing. God’s very character is reflected in the
commandments He gave to His chosen people. They were to restore even
to an enemy his ox or ass that had wandered off (Exodus 23:4). Yet God
himself won’t give wandering mankind the kindness He commands that
man give to beasts? Such teaching doesn’t ring true to Scripture or to the
conscience God has placed within each person (Romans 2:14–15).
A Foundational Misunderstanding
How does this grievous libel upon God’s holy character arise among
true Christians? Chiefly through an overemphasis upon the sovereignty of
God to the exclusion of all else. It is imagined that if man can make a
choice—if even with the wooing and winning of the Holy Spirit he can
willingly, from his heart, respond to the love of God in the gospel—God’s
sovereignty has been nullified. Pink insists that if man could, by an act of
his will, believe on and receive Christ, “then the Christian would have
ground for boasting and self-glorying over his cooperation with the
Spirit....”17 Even Carson, in a book that has so much balanced truth to
offer, falls into this error:
If Christ died for all people with exactly the same intent...then surely it is
impossible to avoid the conclusion that the ultimate distinguishing mark between
those who are saved and those who are not is their own decision, their own will.
That is surely ground for boasting.18

Only a Calvinist could fail to see the fallacy of this argument. Salvation
is “the gift of God” (Romans 6:23). How could a gift be received without
the ability to choose? The ability to say no—which is all Calvinism grants
to the totally depraved—is meaningless without the accompanying ability
to say yes.
Furthermore, how could accepting a gift provide a basis for boasting?
If the gift is offered to all freely for the taking, those who receive the gift
have no basis whatsoever for giving any credit to themselves. All has been
provided in Christ, it is His work, to Him is all the glory, and it is absurd to
suggest that the hopeless sinner who has been rescued without merit or
effort on his part, but simply by receiving God’s grace, could thereby
boast of anything.
The Calvinist is so fearful that any response on man’s part would
challenge God’s sovereignty that he invents ever more untenable
arguments. Charles Hodge insists that “if efficacious grace is the exercise
of almighty power it is irresistible.”19 Following the same reasoning, C. D.
Cole writes, “The power of grace is the power of God. This makes it fitting
to speak of irresistible grace. Surely we can speak of an irresistible
God!”20
The flaw in such reasoning is elementary. Omnipotent power has
nothing to do with grace or love or bestowing a gift. Indeed, just as God
himself cannot force anyone to love Him (a coerced response is the
opposite of love), so it would be the very opposite of grace to force any
gift or benefit of “grace” upon anyone who did not want to receive it. To
be a gift, it must be received willingly. Power has nothing to do with God’s
gracious, loving gift.
Beck, like so many Calvinists, echoes the same unsound argument: “I
repeat, the Gospel of Christ is the power of God unto salvation! Nothing
can stop it.... If God’s grace can be successfully resisted, then God can be
overcome....”21 Such arguments are an embarrassment to sound reason.
God’s power in salvation refers to His ability to pay sin’s penalty so that
He can be just and yet justify sinners; it does not refer to His forcing
salvation upon those who would otherwise reject it. Nowhere in Scripture
is there such a concept. Always it is “whosoever will may come”—never
the imposition of God’s grace upon any unwilling person. Here we must
agree with Arminius, who said, “Grace is not an omnipotent act of God,
which cannot be resisted by the free-will of men.”22 It cannot be, or it
would not be grace by very definition.
Yahweh sent His prophets generation after generation to plead for
repentance from a people who steadfastly refused the offer of His grace.
Why was that grace not “irresistible”? If God’s omnipotent power can
cause whomever He wills to receive the gift of His grace, then “gift” is no
more gift, “grace” is no more grace, and man is not a morally responsible
being.
In all of God’s pleadings with Israel for her repentance and His
promises of blessing if she would do so, there is never any suggestion that
He could or would impose His grace upon her irresistibly. No Calvinist has
ever given a biblical explanation for Irresistible Grace.
As only one of many examples, God cries, “Oh that my people had
hearkened unto me...! I should soon have subdued their enemies, [and]
have fed them also with the finest of the wheat” (Psalm 81:8–16).
Instead, God’s judgment fell upon Israel. Was judgment what He intended
all along, and were His pleadings insincere? One is driven to such a
conclusion by Calvinism—which undermines all of Scripture. Such
pleadings with Israel, and with all mankind, are turned into a shameful
pretense.
More Contradictions
This elementary but sincere misunderstanding of omnipotence is
foundational to Calvinism. Tom Ross argues: “If every man possesses a
free will that is powerful enough to resist the will of God in salvation,
what would prevent that same man from choosing to resist the will of
God in damnation at the great white throne of judgment?”23 Ross is
confused. Those gathered before the great white throne are there
because they have repeatedly hardened themselves against God’s love
and gracious offer of salvation. Now they face His judgment. Grace is
offered in love; judgment is imposed by justice and power.
Can Ross see no difference between salvation offered in God’s grace,
and judgment imposed by His justice? Can he be serious in suggesting
that because the former could be rejected so could the latter? Not all
Calvinists agree. Thus Carson writes that “God’s unconditioned
sovereignty and the responsibility of human beings are mutually
compatible.”24
We do not minimize God’s sovereignty—but that must be balanced
with His other attributes. Carson declares, “I do not think that what the
Bible says about the love of God can long survive at the forefront of our
thinking if it is abstracted from the sovereignty of God, the holiness of
God, the wrath of God, the providence of God, or the personhood of God
—to mention only a few nonnegotiable elements of basic Christianity.”25
God’s absolute sovereignty did not prevent rebellion by Satan and
Adam, man’s continual disobedience of the Ten Commandments, and his
straying like a lost sheep in rejection of God’s will. Much less does
sovereignty mean that God is behind it all, causing every sin—as
Calvinism requires. This error gave rise to the belief that grace must be
irresistible.
Every conscience bears witness to Carson’s un-Calvinistic statement
that “The Scriptures do not mock us when they say, ‘Like as a father
pitieth his children, so the Lord pitieth them that fear him.’”26 Yet Carson
remains a Calvinist while contradicting in many ways what most of his
colleagues believe.
Some Calvinists attempt to escape the horrifying consequences of
their doctrine by suggesting that predestination unto damnation, and
God’s invitation to all to believe, are both true even though they
contradict each other. Supposedly, we just don’t know how to reconcile
these apparent conflicts and should not attempt to, for all will be
revealed in eternity.
The truth is that Calvinism itself has created this particular “mystery.”
Although there is much that finite beings cannot understand, we have
been given a conscience with a keen sense of right and wrong, and of
justice and injustice. God calls us to reason with Him about these things.
He goes to great lengths to explain His justice and love, and has given
even to unregenerate man the capacity to understand the gospel, and to
believe in Christ or to reject Him. Calvinism, as we have repeatedly seen,
is repugnant to the God-given conscience.
Irresistible Grace and the Gospel
Most Calvinists attempt to honor Christ’s command to “preach the
gospel to every creature.” Yet it is difficult to uphold the importance of
the gospel when the unregenerate are unable to believe it, and the elect
are regenerated without it, then sovereignly and supernaturally given
faith to believe. Seemingly unaware that he is contradicting the very
“Reformed Theology” of which he is a major defender, R. C. Sproul, Jr.,
earnestly exhorts readers, “If we believe in the power of the gospel to
effect our salvation, we must believe in the power of the Gospel preached
to bring in His elect.”27 But Calvinism’s elect have been predestined from
a past eternity, and it is God’s sovereign act of regeneration, not the
gospel, which alone can “bring in His elect.”
Given TULIP, how can the gospel effect the salvation of anyone? The
unregenerate, elect or non-elect, cannot respond to or believe it. Nor
would it benefit the non-elect to understand, because they have been
predestined to eternal damnation from the beginning.
The elect are regenerated without the gospel and only then can they
believe it. But once regenerated, they have already been saved unless
one can be sovereignly regenerated (i.e., born again by the Spirit) and still
not be saved. Having been regenerated without the gospel, subsequently
hearing and believing it cannot save them, since they have already been
saved in their regeneration.
Sproul is being faithful to God’s Word, which clearly teaches that the
gospel “is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth” it
(Romans 1:16). In being true to the Bible, however, he must ignore
Calvinism’s teaching that one cannot believe the gospel until one has
been regenerated. So he talks as though the gospel, as the Bible says,
must be believed for salvation—but he cannot truly believe this, or he
would have to abandon Calvinism.
Sproul spends an entire book rightly rebuking the signers of
“Evangelicals and Catholics Together: The Christian Mission in the Third
Millennium.” He argues correctly that “Justification by faith alone is
essential to the gospel. The gospel is essential to Christianity and to
salvation.”28 He ends the book with this un-Calvinistic quote from John
Calvin: “Let it therefore remain settled...that we are justified by faith
alone.”29
But Sproul believes there is no faith until regeneration, so the new
birth into God’s family as a child of God leaves one still unjustified!
Furthermore, since faith in Christ through the gospel is essential to
salvation, we have the elect born again as children of God before they are
saved.
When it deals with the gospel, Calvinism becomes very confusing. How
can the gospel preached “bring in His elect” as Sproul declares? Even the
elect can’t believe it until they have been regenerated—and Calvinism is
firm that regeneration is the way for God to “bring in His elect.” Was it
not the sovereign act of regeneration that brought the elect into the fold?
Then the gospel was not involved, and Sproul is offering false motivation
for preaching it.
The Calvinist apparently has two compartments in his mind: in one, he
holds to Calvinism’s dogmas faithfully, and in the other, he holds to the
teaching of Scripture. It can’t be easy or comfortable for the conscience.
The fact that faith in Christ through the gospel precedes the new
birth/salvation (in contradiction to the doctrine of regeneration before
faith) is undeniably taught in scores of passages such as the following:

• The devil…taketh away the word out of their hearts, lest they
 should believe and be saved. (Luke 8:12)

• Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved….

(Acts 16:31)

• That if thou shalt…believe in thine heart…thou shalt be saved.

(Romans 10:9)

• In whom [Christ] also ye trusted, after that ye heard the word

of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that
ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise....
(Ephesians 1:13; emphasis added)
A Classic Oxymoron
On its very face, the phrase “Irresistible Grace” presents another
irreconcilable contradiction. As far as grace is concerned, there are two
possible meanings for the word “irresistible”: irresistible in its appeal to
all mankind; or irresistible in its imposition upon the elect alone. The
former is, of course, vigorously denied by Calvinism. That system is
founded upon the belief that grace and the gospel have no appeal at all to
the totally depraved, spiritually dead sons and daughters of Adam. Nor
does grace have any appeal even to the elect until they have been
sovereignly regenerated.
Only one possibility remains: that grace is irresistibly imposed upon a
chosen elect—and this is the teaching of Calvinism. But to impose
anything upon anyone is the very antithesis of grace. Forcing even a most
valuable and desirable gift upon someone who does not wish to receive it
would be ungracious in the extreme. Thus the phrase “Irresistible Grace”
is another oxymoron. Yet this is an integral element without which the
other four points of TULIP collapse.
Moreover, this fourth point of TULIP, like the first three, confronts us
with one more phrase unknown to Scripture—so how can it possibly be
biblical? The word “irresistible” does not appear in the Bible. The
wonderful grace of God, however, is one of the most precious truths
presented in His Word. The word “grace” occurs 170 times in 159 verses.
And never in any mention of it is there a suggestion that grace is
irresistibly imposed. Always the inference is that God’s grace is given
freely and willingly received.
Consider a few examples:

• But Noah found grace in the eyes of the Lord. (Genesis 6:8)

• The Lord will give grace and glory.... (Psalm 84:11)

• By whom we have received grace and apostleship.... (Romans

1:5)

• Having then gifts differing according to the grace that is given

to us.... (Romans 12:6)

• I thank my God...for the grace of God which is given you by

Jesus Christ.... (1 Corinthians 1:4)

• Unto me, who am less than the least of all saints, is this grace
given.... (Ephesians 3:8)

• But unto every one of us is given grace according to the

measure of the gift of Christ. (Ephesians 4:7)

• Likewise, ye husbands...giving honour unto the wife...as being

heirs together of the grace of life.... (1 Peter 3:7)
What about other scriptures, such as “And I will pour upon the house
of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and
supplications...” (Zechariah 12:10); “And with great power gave the
apostles witness...and great grace was upon them” (Acts 4:33); “And God
is able to make all grace abound toward you...” (2 Corinthians 9:8), etc.?
Although the indication seems stronger that God is sovereignly granting
grace, there is no indication that God’s grace is irresistibly imposed upon
anyone. Each must, of his own will, choose to receive it.
The “Two Conflicting Wills” Theory Revisited
Many Calvinists, in upholding that system, make astonishing
statements such as the following: “Because God’s will is always done, the
will of every creature must conform to the sovereign will of God.”30
Logically, then, every thought, word, and deed of mankind (including the
most heinous wickedness) has been willed by God. Vance comments,
“That fornication and unthankfulness are actually part of God’s ‘secret
will’ should come as no surprise in light of...the Calvinistic concept of
God’s all-encompassing decree.”31 But does not everyone’s God-given
conscience shrink in horror from this doctrine that all evil is according to
God’s will? Pink even rejects the distinction sometimes made between
God’s “perfect will” and His “permissive will,” because “God only permits
that which is according to His will.”32 He thus contradicts MacArthur’s
view of 1 Timothy 2:4 that God has two conflicting wills—a view with
which Sproul, Piper, and other leading Calvinists are in full agreement.
Calvinists struggle to reconcile a sovereignty that causes every sinful
thought, word, and deed and damns billions, with the repeated biblical
assurances of God’s goodness, compassion, and love for all. Much like
MacArthur, John Piper proposes an unbiblical and irrational solution—the
idea that God has two wills that contradict one another yet are not in
conflict:
Therefore I affirm with John 3:16 and 1 Timothy 2:4 that God loves the world with
a deep compassion that desires the salvation of all men. Yet I also affirm that God
has chosen from before the foundation of the world whom he will save from sin.
Since not all people are saved we must choose whether we believe (with the
Arminians) that God’s will to save all people is restrained by his commitment to
human self-determination or whether we believe (with the Calvinists) that God’s
will to save all people is restrained by his commitment to the glorification of his
 sovereign grace (Ephesians 1:6, 12, 14; Romans 9:22–23).... This book aims to show
that the sovereignty of God’s grace in salvation is taught in Scripture. My
contribution has simply been to show that God’s will for all people to be saved is
not at odds with the sovereignty of God’s grace in election. That is, my answer to
the question about what restrains God’s will to save all people is his supreme
commitment to uphold and display the full range of his glory through the
sovereign demonstration of his wrath and mercy for the enjoyment of his elect
and believing people from every tribe and tongue and nation.33

Once again, we have an unblushing contradiction from Piper. In His

great love and compassion, God “desires the salvation of all men.” Yet to
“display the full range of his glory” he doesn’t save them all—and this in
spite of the insistence that He could save all if he so desired. Let us get
this straight: Piper’s God desires the salvation of all men; in His sovereign
imposition of irresistible grace, he could save all but doesn’t in order to
demonstrate his wrath.
Here we have the clearest contradiction possible. How can the
Calvinist escape? Ah, Piper has found an ingenious way to affirm that God
loves and really desires to save even those whom He has predestined to
damnation from eternity past: God has two wills which, though they
contradict each other, are really in secret agreement. Are we being led
into madness where words have lost their meaning?
We are asked to believe that it is no contradiction for God to
contradict himself if it furthers the “sovereign demonstration of his wrath
and mercy”! Reason fails Piper once again. Damning billions would
certainly demonstrate God’s wrath—but how would that glorify Him in
his mercy? And even if that somehow were the case, there is no way to
reconcile reprobation with the clear expressions of God’s love and desire
for the salvation of all—expressions which Piper uncalvinistically claims to
accept at face value.
Piper has yet another problem. God does not contradict Himself.
Therefore, Piper must reconcile what he calls “two wills” of God to show
that they are in agreement, even though they directly disagree with and
invalidate each other. And this he fails to do, because it is impossible. A
contradiction is a contradiction, and there is no honest way that two
contradictory propositions can be massaged into agreement.
Piper is following Calvin, who fell into the same misconception. He
said, “This is His wondrous love towards the human race, that He desires
all men to be saved, and is prepared to bring even the perishing to
safety.... God is prepared to receive all men into repentance, so that none
may perish.” 34 Could this be the same John Calvin who declared so often
and so clearly that, from a past eternity, God had predestined billions to
damnation? Is Calvin’s God a schizophrenic?
Very much like Piper’s “two wills,” Calvin fell back upon a “secret will”:
“No mention is made here of the secret decree of God by which the
wicked are doomed to their own ruin.”35 Sproul attempts to play the
same broken string. Bryson responds reasonably and succinctly:
Thus, Calvinists are in the rather awkward position of claiming to make a valid
offer of salvation (to the unelect)...while denying [that] the only provision (i.e.,
Christ’s death) of salvation is for the unelect...[and saying] that the unelect cannot
possibly believe [the gospel].... To add insult to injury, they are claiming this is just
the way God (from all eternity) wanted it to be.36

Calvinists claim that man’s will and actions cannot be in conflict with
God’s will, for that would make man greater than God. That unbiblical
position concerning God’s sovereignty drives them to propose that the
two wills in conflict are not God’s will and man’s will, but two wills of
God’s design. In other words, they claim that the battle is not between
God and man, as the Bible says, but rather God against himself, as
Calvinism insists. God is being misrepresented.

 1. Loraine Boettner, The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian
and Reformed Publishing Co., 1932), 365.
2. Benjamin B. Warfield, Calvin and Augustine, ed. Samuel G. Craig (Phillipsburg, NJ:
Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1956), 321.
3. Kenneth H. Good, Are Baptists Calvinists? (Rochester, NY: Backus Book Publishers,
1988), 49.
4. R. C. Sproul, The Holiness of God (Carol Stream, IL: Tyndale House Publishers, Inc., 1993
ed.), 273.
5. William G. T. Shedd, A History of Christian Doctrine (New York: Charles Scribner and
Co., 3rd ed. 1865), 70.
6. Augustine, On the Spirit and the Letter. In Laurence M. Vance, The Other Side of
Calvinism (Pensacola, FL: Vance Publications, rev. ed. 1999), 57.
7. Augustine, On the Predestination of the Saints, op. cit., 7,8,16.
8. Dave Breese, “The Five Points of Calvinism” (self-published paper, n. d.), 3.
9. John Piper and Pastoral Staff, “TULIP: What We Believe about the Five Points of
Calvinism: Position Paper of the Pastoral Staff” (Minneapolis, MN: Desiring God Ministries,
1997), 12.
10. Piper and Staff, “TULIP,” 9.
11. Ibid.
12. Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.,
1986), 2:643.
13. John Piper, The Legacy of Sovereign Joy: God’s Triumphant Grace in the Lives of
Augustine, Luther, and Calvin (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 2000), 73.
14. J. I. Packer, “The Love of God: Universal and Particular,” in Still Sovereign, ed. Thomas R.
Schreiner and Bruce A. Ware (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2000) 281.
15. Piper and Staff, “TULIP,” 9.
16. D. A. Carson, The Difficult Doctrine of the Love of God (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books,
2000), 46–47.
17. Arthur W. Pink, The Sovereignty of God (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 2nd prtg.
1986), 128.
18. Carson, Difficult, 78–79.
19. Hodge, Systematic, II:687.
20. C. D. Cole, Definitions of Doctrines (Swengle, PA: Bible Truth Depot, n. d.), 84.
21. Frank B. Beck, The Five Points of Calvinism (Lithgow, Australia: Covenanter Press, 2nd
Australian ed. 1986), 40.
22. Jacobus Arminius, The Works of James Arminius, trans. James and William Nichols (Grand
Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1986), I:525.
 23. Tom Ross, Abandoned Truth: The Doctrines of Grace (Providence Baptist Church, 1991),
56.
24. Carson, Difficult, 52.
25. Ibid., 11.
26. Ibid., 29.
27. R. C. Sproul, Jr., “The Authentic Message,” Tabletalk, Ligonier Ministries, Inc., June 2001,
7.
28. R. C. Sproul, Faith Alone: The Evangelical Doctrine of Justification (Grand Rapids, MI:
Baker Books, 1995), 19, and throughout the book.
29. Ibid., 192; citing Calvin, The Epistles of Paul the Apostle (a comment on Galatians 2:16),
39.
30. Steven R. Houck, The Bondage of the Will (Lansing, IL: Peace Protestant Reformed
Church, n. d.), 3.
31. Laurence M. Vance, The Other Side of Calvinism (Pensacola, FL: Vance Publications, rev.
ed. 1999), 481.
32. Pink, Sovereignty, 243.
33. John Piper, “Are There Two Wills In God?” In Still Sovereign, ed. Thomas R. Schreiner
and Bruce A. Ware (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2000), 130–31.
34. John Calvin, Calvin’s New Testament Commentaries (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm B. Eerdmans
Publishing Co., 1994), 12, 364.
35. Ibid.
36. George L. Bryson, The Five Points of Calvinism: Weighed and Found Wanting (Costa
Mesa, CA: The Word For Today, 1996), 56.
23—The Calvinist’s Irresolvable Problem
EVEN CHRISTIANS at times disobey God. Consider the following: “For
this is the will of God, even your sanctification...” (1 Thessalonians 4:3);
“In every thing give thanks: for this is the will of God…” (1 Thessalonians
5:18). What Christian fulfills God’s will by always living a perfectly
sanctified life and giving thanks to God “in everything”?
God’s will is violated continually by unbelievers disobeying the Law,
and by believers failing to live as they should. “These things write I unto
you, that ye sin not” (1 John 2:1) expresses the will of God for every
Christian. Yet John also declares that no Christian fully lives up to this
desire of God: “If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves.... If
we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his truth is not in
us” (1 John 1:8, 10).
Even God’s grace requires faith and obedience. Many scriptures make
it clear that while grace is unmerited, we must accept and respond to it.
Paul declares, “I laboured more abundantly than they all: yet not I, but
the grace of God which was with me” (1 Corinthians 15:10);
“We...beseech you also that ye receive not the grace of God in vain” (2
Corinthians 6:1); “My son, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus” (2
Timothy 2:1); “Let us therefore come boldly unto the throne of grace,
that we may obtain mercy...” (Hebrews 4:16). Clearly Paul is declaring
that God’s grace is not irresistible but must be wedded to human will and
effort.
Numerous scriptures teach that the recep on of God’s grace is not
through irresistible imposition by an overwhelming, omnipotent
sovereignty without willingness on man’s part. One could even fail to
accept (or accept in part and not fully cooperate with) God’s grace. God
sincerely desired to bless Israel. Nevertheless, she refused His grace and
placed herself instead under His judgment by her rebellion and idolatry.
God’s desire for Israel, as for all men, was good: “For I know the
thoughts that I think toward you, saith the LORD, thoughts of peace, and
not of evil...” (Jeremiah 29:11). Yet much evil befell Israel. Why? Because
the blessings of His grace were contingent upon Israel’s faith and
obedience. By her disobedience, she reaped God’s wrath.
We are even told that they “limited the Holy One of Israel” (Psalm
78:41). Think of that—limiting the omnipotent, sovereign God, which
Calvinists say is impossible! Indeed, the rabbis “rejected the counsel of
God against themselves” (Luke 7:30)—but there is no hint that they
thereby annulled God’s sovereignty or gained control over God.
The Christian life and victory is not only by sovereign power, but the
believers’ faith and obedience as “labourers together with God” (1
Corinthians 3:9) are essential: “Whereunto I also labour, striving
according to his working, which worketh in me mightily” (Colossians
1:29); “work out your own salvation with fear and trembling. For it is God
which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure”
(Philippians 2:12–13).
God truly and powerfully works within the believer, and we can do
nothing but by the leading and empowering of the Holy Spirit. At the
same time, however, we must devote ourselves willingly to the work of
God through us. Most Calvinists admit this cooperative effort when it
comes to living the Christian life, but insist that there can be no such
willingness in believing the gospel and accepting Christ.
Again we point out how unreasonable it is—that, if He so desired, God
could sovereignly cause every totally depraved sinner to turn to him, yet
His sovereignty seems to lose its Calvinistic power when it comes to
causing Christians to live in victory and holiness and fruitfulness. It is
certainly clear that once God has regenerated the elect, they do not all
live to His glory as fully as they might and as His perfect will for them, as
expressed in Scripture, desires.
Surely, God’s desire for Christians goes far beyond their experience. If
not, we would have to admit that the shallow and unfruitful lives of so
many genuine believers are exactly what God desires for them. We ask
again, what is the meaning of rewards and the Judgment Seat of Christ if
each Christian’s every thought, word, and deed is exactly as God wills?
And if that is the case, why aren’t Christians perfect? Surely the continual
disobedience, both of unbelievers and believers, proves that God’s grace
is not “irresistible.” Nor does man’s disobedience diminish God’s
sovereignty in the least. Obviously, freedom of choice itself is part of
God’s plan.
Yet the idea of Irresistible Grace is predicated upon the belief that a
human ability to accept or to reject the gospel would deny God’s
sovereignty. We have shown that reasoning to be fallacious and that the
very concept is unbiblical and irrational.
In spite of its doctrine of “irresistible” grace, Calvinism denies that
grace is “imposed” by God upon the elect. At this point, Calvinists begin
to contradict themselves further. Sproul, for example, concedes that
Irresistible Grace can be resisted but at the same time declares that “it is
invincible.”1 We are left to wonder how something invincible can be
resisted. Most Calvinists agree that Irresistible Grace produces an
“effectual call” that is “ultimately irresistible.” Vance quotes a number of
Calvinists to this effect and explains that this concept is “derived from
Chapter X in the Westminster Confession of Faith.”2
Sproul says that for the elect, God takes away all that caused them in
their total depravity to resist Him. The great problem is how to get a
totally depraved man saved—a man who cannot even hear the gospel,
much less understand and believe it. Remember, the Synod of Dort
describes this process as not taking away man’s “will and its properties”
but “sweetly and powerfully bend[ing] it....”3 But to “bend” the will of the
totally depraved (rather than to destroy and create a new one) means
that the original will must have yielded to God. Moreover, what does it
mean to “bend” the will, and how is that done “sweetly” and at the same
time “powerfully”? And if the human will is not destroyed and something
else not put in its place, then it cannot be denied that the human will
does, after all, decide and choose to be bent.
This is a knotty problem! After declaring that totally depraved man’s
will and its properties of self-determination are not taken away, Dort laid
out its complaint against Arminians: “The true doctrine having been
explained, the Synod rejects the errors of those: 1. Who teach...; 2. Who
teach...;” and so forth, through nine numbered paragraphs. Much of what
is listed as being rejected was not believed by the Arminians, nor is it
believed by most non-Calvinists today.
Paragraph 8 wrestled with the difficult problem created by Calvinism
itself: How can man’s will be allowed any part in receiving Christ, when it
is totally depraved, man is spiritually dead, and God’s sovereignty must
cause all, including sin, and salvation through faith in Christ? Here is the
alleged non-Calvinist error denounced by that paragraph:
8. Who teach: That God in the regeneration of man does not use such powers of
his omnipotence as potently and infallibly bend man’s will to faith and conversion;
but that all the works of grace having been accomplished, which God employs to
convert man, man may yet so resist God and the Holy Spirit, when God intends
man’s regeneration and wills to regenerate him, and indeed that man often does
so resist that he prevents entirely his regeneration, and that it therefore remains
in man’s power to be regenerated or not.4

Of course, it is not in man’s power to be regenerated, nor would the

rankest Arminian suggest that it was. Regeneration is entirely God’s work
—but it is also a gift that the recipient must willingly receive: “the gift of
God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord” (Romans 6:23). That man
can accept or reject the offered salvation, however, does not mean that it
is in his power to be regenerated.
While Ben Rose insists that “God does not bring anyone into the
kingdom against his or her will,”5 yet that statement is clearly
contradicted by the phrase “irresistible grace.” If, under the conviction of
the Holy Spirit, man could make a genuine choice to believe and to
receive, there would be no need for grace to be “irresistible.” The
Westminster Confession of Faith continues the double-talk:
All those whom God hath predestinated unto life, and those alone, he is
pleased...effectually to call...to grace and salvation by Jesus Christ; enlightening
their minds spiritually and savingly to understand the things of God...renewing
their wills, and, by his almighty power...effectually drawing them to Jesus Christ:
yet so as they come most freely, being made willing by his grace.6

No Explaining Away
There is no escaping the mind and will. Even Calvinism’s sovereign
regeneration (supposedly without faith or consent) does not create a new
man out of nothing—but it regenerates him. Consequently, Westminster
must use phrases such as “enlightening their minds.” Remember, this
was allegedly a totally depraved sinner who could choose only evil. Yet his
mind must have the inherent ability to understand truth, or how could it
be “enlightened”?
And what about “renewing their wills”? Could that mean restoring
some capacity once held but lost? Not if man is totally depraved. When
was the will ever that to which it is renewed (i.e., restored) by this
regeneration and enlightenment? “Renewal” does not fit Calvinism. How
can those born spiritually dead be renewed to what they never were?
The very language contradicts the foundational beliefs of Calvinism—but
there are no other words available.
Of course, we need to be enlightened. How that happens is the
question. For the Calvinist, enlightenment is irresistibly imposed upon a
totally depraved sinner who has no capacity to be enlightened and never
experienced any such state of mind or will to which he could be renewed.
Therefore the process cannot be described as “enlightenment” or
“renewal”—but Westminster can find no expression, either in Scripture
or in language itself, to “explain” this false belief.
Men are without excuse, because all understand the law of God
written in every conscience and fear the consequences of disobedience.
Thus man is morally responsible to God. Biblically, the problem is not that
man cannot understand the gospel or that he cannot submit to God, but
that he will not: “Ye will not come to me, that ye might have life” (John
5:40); “Because...when they knew God, they glorified him not as God,
neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their
foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they
became fools...” (Romans 1:21-22).
For that stubborn self-will to change, the Holy Spirit must, of course,
work in heart and mind. But it is not an irresistible work upon hopelessly
blind and dead creatures, but a persuasion with the truth of those who
know what they are doing and could believe on Christ if they were willing.
Scores of scriptures make it clear that those who are “willing and
obedient” (Isaiah 1:19) receive God’s salvation; that “whosoever will
[may] take of the water of life freely” (Revelation 22:17). All are loved by
God, sought and persuaded by God, and all have the choice either to
accept or reject the salvation He offers. That fact is what makes eternal
judgment just—and so tragic.
What Does Christ Teach?
Responding to the criticism of the Pharisees that He received sinners
and ate with them, Christ gave the illustrations of the lost sheep, lost
coin, and prodigal son to show that humans seek and have great joy in
finding the lost, whether sheep, coin, or wayward son (Luke 15:1–32). It
seems equally clear that these illustrations are intended also to tell us of
God’s love and joy in seeking and finding the lost. The vignettes Christ
gives do not seem to represent true children of God who have wandered
away and are being brought back by God but rather examples of lost
mankind.
In telling the prodigal’s story, Christ uses language that contradicts
Calvinism. The “totally depraved” prodigal realizes his situation, comes to
a decision, makes a choice, and acts upon it by his will: “And when he
came to himself, he said…. I will arise and go to my father, and will say
unto him, Father, I have sinned against heaven, and before thee....” Christ
does not say that the prodigal, being totally incapable of understanding
his situation, or of repenting and returning to the father, was irresistibly
drawn by the father.
Although the prodigal “was dead,” and was “lost” (Luke 15:24), that
did not prevent him from being moved in his conscience and choosing to
return of his own volition to the father. If the prodigal does not represent
the unregenerate lost sinner dead in sin whom God welcomes in love,
then the Calvinist must admit that salvation can be lost—which neither
side believes.
Christ declared that all men are to act like the good Samaritan toward
everyone in need (Luke 10:30–37); we are to love even our enemies and
do good to those who hate us (Matthew 5:44). If this is the standard God
sets for mankind, would He not behave even more benevolently toward
all? If Paul did not want a single Jew to go to hell and was in continual
agony of soul for their salvation, willing even to be accursed of God if that
would save his “kinsmen according to the flesh” (Romans 9:1–3), would
God, who must have put this selfless love in Paul’s heart, be any less
loving and concerned for lost humanity on its way to hell? Surely not the
God of the Bible!
What About God’s Love?
It is simply impossible to maintain that a God who damns those He
could save (much less who takes pleasure in so doing!) is merciful and full
of love. How then can the Calvinist escape the charge that he
misrepresents the God of the Bible? Sovereignty can’t excuse or justify
callous neglect on God’s part to rescue those He could save. That God has
the right to damn everyone does not make it loving and merciful.
Our disagreement with Calvinism is not over God’s sovereignty, which
is biblical. The issue is whether God loves all without partiality and desires
all to be saved. Unquestionably, Calvinism denies such love, no matter
how the “moderate” Calvinists try to explain that fact away. Yet the Bible
repeatedly declares God’s love to all and His desire that all should be
saved and none should be lost.
The God of the Bible is surely even more loving than He expects
Christians to be. We may be certain, as Spurgeon said, that just as we
desire the salvation of all, so that is God’s desire—as Scripture so often
and plainly declares. To say that the God who is not willing for any to
perish provides salvation for only a limited number of elect does violence
to Scripture and maligns God’s character.
If grace is irresistible, why doesn’t God, who is love and full of
compassion, impose it upon everyone? But grace cannot be irresistible.
God cannot force anyone to believe in Christ, much less to love Him. All
who would be in God’s presence for eternity must love Him sincerely, and
love requires a genuine choice.
The Bible declares that multitudes will spend eternity in the Lake of
Fire. Why? There are only two possible reasons: either God causes
multitudes of men to go to hell because He doesn’t love and has no desire
to save them—or they willfully reject the salvation He offers. Nor can it
be both, or God’s will would coincide with that of rebels.
Was Paul Wrong in His Passionate Concern?
It seems reasonable that Paul, who was inspired of the Holy Spirit to
provide the definitive teaching concerning foreknowledge,
election/predestination, sovereignty, and salvation by grace through
faith, would know these subjects even better than Calvin. Could Paul have
been wrong in his continual agony for the salvation of Israel (and indeed
of all men)? Yet if God himself, as Calvin sincerely believed, is not
concerned over the lost (and how could He be, having predestined their
eternal torment?), then we must conclude that Paul was badly out of
touch with the Holy Spirit for being in continual, prayerful distress for the
salvation of the Jews. Paul misunderstood the scriptures which he was
inspired to write, but Calvin interpreted them correctly?!
Paul confesses, “Brethren, my heart’s desire and prayer to God for
Israel is, that they might be saved” (Romans 10:1). Surely he cannot be
praying for Calvin’s elect, for their salvation has been predestined from
eternity past. Irresistible Grace will make certain they are saved, so there
is no need to pray for them. And how could Paul dare to express deep
concern for those whom God in His sovereignty has willed to be damned,
and for whom God has no concern and Christ did not die—if that were
indeed the case?
It is troubling that we hear no concern from Calvinists that so many
will spend eternity in hell. That attitude, however, is perfectly consistent
with their beliefs. Why should one be disappointed at that which is God’s
sovereign good pleasure? And wouldn’t it be rebellion to be concerned
for the salvation of those whom God refuses to save?
What God Is This?
Calvinism’s God does not desire to save all mankind, and Calvinism’s
Christ had no intention of dying for the sins of all on the cross. At this
point, we reach our ultimate objection to this system of religion, which
young Calvin learned from Augustine and further developed and passed
along to millions who follow it today. This doctrine is repugnant even to
unbelievers, because it contradicts the conscience and the sense of
obligation and fairness God has implanted in every one of us. Yet a
Calvinist pastor insists, “To suggest that Christ came actually to save all
men is ‘universalism’...a heresy openly promoted by the ecumenical
churches.”7 On the contrary, universalism teaches that all men will
ultimately be saved, not that salvation is offered to all.
A Calvinist editor in England wrote to me earnestly, “The plain truth is
that God does not wish to save all men. If He did, then He would save
them... [why don’t “moderates” admit this?]. If God wanted to save all
men, why did He prevent Paul from preaching the gospel in certain
areas?”8 Such an argument makes sense only to a Calvinist, for whom
salvation is not something man receives by faith in his heart but is
imposed upon him contrary to his natural will and cannot be resisted.
Hence the necessity for Irresistible Grace.
But what does this have to do with God preventing Paul from
preaching in certain places? There could have been many reasons for
redirecting Paul. Certainly he could not preach everywhere. Again
Calvinists are grasping at straws.
Peter asked Christ, “Lord, how oft shall my brother sin against me, and
I forgive him? till seven times?” The Lord responded that he ought to
forgive “seventy times seven.” Christ then told the story of the servant
who, because he would not forgive a fellow servant, was “delivered...to
the tormentors.” In application, He said, “So likewise shall my heavenly
Father do also unto you, if ye from your hearts forgive not every one his
brother their trespasses” (Matthew 18:21–35).
Surely if our heavenly Father expects us to forgive those who sin
against us, how much more can we be confident that He is ready to
forgive all who sin against Him. This is God as the Bible portrays Him—
infinite in love, grace, and mercy, ready to forgive all who call upon Him.
Calvinism misrepresents Him as only loving and forgiving a limited
number of sinners.
The Darkest Side of Calvinism
We consider TULIP to be a libel against our loving and merciful God as
He reveals himself both in His Word and in human conscience. Because of
the Lord’s mercy to the rebellious house of Israel, Nehemiah praises Him:
“...thou art a gracious and merciful God” (Nehemiah 9:31). In seeking to
call His wayward people to himself, God says to disobedient Israel
through the prophet Jeremiah, “I am merciful” (Jeremiah 3:12). In the
spirit of all of the prophets, Joel begs Israel to repent: “[T]urn unto the
LORD your God; for he is gracious and merciful, slow to anger, and of great
kindness...” (Joel 2:13).
There is no way to reconcile with conscience or Scripture the lack of
concern on the part of Calvinism’s God for all of the lost. R. C. Sproul
wrote, “How we understand the person and character of God the Father
affects every aspect of our lives.”9 He is right, and what effect must it
have upon those who believe in a God who limits His love, grace and
mercy to a select group, takes pleasure in damning the rest of mankind,
and tells us to be merciful as He is merciful!
David, who surely knew God at least as well as Calvin did, declared,
“With the merciful thou wilt shew thyself merciful...” (2 Samuel 22:26).
Not a word about being merciful to the elect only. The God of the Bible is
merciful to those who have shown mercy to others. Is this not what Jesus
also said in the Sermon on the Mount: “Blessed are the merciful: for they
shall obtain mercy” (Matthew 5:7)? But we are to believe that those who
show mercy would receive no mercy from God unless they were among
the elect. Yet both Christ and David make it sound as though, even
without the benefit of Irresistible Grace, some of the “totally depraved”
show mercy to their fellows, and because of that God’s mercy will be
given to them. Apparently, showing mercy reveals a heart willing to
receive (and to be grateful for) God’s mercies.
This Is Election?
 Calvin seemed to believe that nearly everyone in Geneva was one of
the elect and treated them accordingly. Why? First of all, Calvin believed
that baptism transformed an infant into one of the elect. In fact, to have
been baptized at any age, even by the most wicked and unbelieving
Roman Catholic priest, was to have entered into the kingdom of God if
one thereafter believed in the efficacy of that sacrament:
God in bap sm promises the remission of sins, and will undoubtedly perform
what he has promised to all believers. That promise was offered to us in baptism,
let us therefore embrace it in faith.10

This is a remarkable statement. According to Calvin, the gospel is no

certain way to bring people to Christ—but baptism is. Baptism gives
certain entrance into the kingdom of God! Furthermore, Calvin taught
that the children of believers, even though not baptized, are
automatically among the elect:
Children who happen to depart this life before an opportunity of immersing them
in water are not excluded from the kingdom of heaven.... Hence it follows, that the
children of believers are not baptised in order that though formerly aliens from the
Church, they may then, for the first time, become children of God, but rather are
received into the Church by a formal sign, because, in virtue of the promise, they
previously belonged to the body of Christ (emphasis added).11

Apparently from Calvin’s belief that everyone in Geneva, having been

baptized, was one of the elect (though he might have to burn, behead,
flog, torture, or banish some of them for heresy), attendance at church
services was required of all. It was perhaps this rule that caused Servetus
to risk drawing attention to himself by attending the service where he
was recognized. Moreover, also mandatory for everyone (with few
exceptions) was the partaking of the bread and wine at the celebration of
the Lord’s Supper.
Considering Paul’s clear warning that “he that eateth and drinketh
unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself” (1 Corinthians
11:29), what can be said in defense of Calvin’s forcing of the Eucharist
upon the unwilling? Could he have sincerely believed that every citizen in
his holy “City of God” belonged to Christ? Wasn’t this a worse sort of
“universalism” than that which Calvinists attribute to those of us who
believe Christ died for all?
There was at least one exception to this universalism that nevertheless
hardly changes the picture. A notorious libertine named Berthelier had
been forbidden by the Church Consistory to partake of the Lord’s Supper.
In 1553, together with others of his persuasion, he attempted to do so
and was repulsed by Calvin.12 This sparked the last uprising against Calvin
(harshly put down by force with executions) to which we have earlier
referred.
Left with Unanswered Questions
Calvinism’s elect, chosen by God for salvation, must somehow be
made to believe the gospel in spite of both their natural unwillingness
and alleged inability. The gospel of God’s grace, which seemingly is
offered to whosoever will believe, must be imposed—but this “grace” is
only for those whom God has elected. As White explains, this is why
Irresistible Grace is an absolute necessity:
Unregenerate man is fully capable of understanding the facts of the gospel: he is
simply incapable, due to his corruption and enmity, to submit himself to that
gospel....13

This is a terrible attack upon the gospel, rendering powerless what

Paul declares is itself “the power of God unto salvation” (Romans 1:16)!
With no clear support from the Bible, the “Reformed position” must be
deduced from the fact that man is “dead in sin”14—erroneously ascribing
(as we have already seen) the symptoms of physical death to the
spiritually dead.
Once sovereignly regenerated, the person is presumably able, under
the influence of Irresistible Grace, to believe the gospel and thereafter to
serve Christ from the heart. Yet grace is evidently no longer imposed
irresistibly upon the elect once they are regenerated, since they do not
always behave as they should, much less to perfection. But Scripture
describes in very clear terms the Christlike life that believers are to live:
Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things have passed
away; behold, all things are become new. Christ liveth in me.... For we are his
workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before
ordained that we should walk in them. For it is God which worketh in you both to
will and to do of his good pleasure.... Every one that doeth righteousness is born of
him.… Whosoever abideth in him sinneth not...greater is he that is in you than he
that is in the world....” (2 Corinthians 5:17; Galatians 2:20; Ephesians 2:10;
Philippians 2:13: 1 John 2:29; 3:6; 4:4)

The Calvinist cannot point to any passage in the Bible that clearly
states that grace is irresistible or that God imposes it upon the elect who
otherwise could not believe the gospel. Yet many passages such as the
above clearly state that God intends Christ-likeness for those who are
regenerated. Then why don’t Christians perfectly perform the “good
works, which God hath before ordained” for them (Ephesians 2:10)?
If God irresistibly imposes His grace upon the “totally depraved” to
regenerate them, why doesn’t He impose it upon the regenerated unto
perfection in Christian living? There is no biblical answer to this question
if we deny free will and accept the theory of Irresistible Grace.
Paul even gives the example of a true Christian, surely one of the elect,
who does not have even one good work as evidence that he belongs to
Christ. Yet “he himself shall be saved”(1 Corinthians 3:12–15). How could
God’s sovereignty completely override human moral responsibility and
choice, as the Calvinist insists, to the extent that man has no choice when
it comes to salvation—and yet the elect are able to resist God’s grace and
His will and thus often fail to do the good works that God has ordained
for them?
 If the elect, having been made spiritually alive by sovereign
regeneration, nevertheless do not perfectly obey God, why is unbelief
and rebellion equated by Calvinism with total depravity and spiritual
death?
If God’s sovereignty does not nullify for the elect the moral
accountability to make choices, why would His sovereignty disallow a
genuine choice on the part of the unsaved to accept or reject the gospel?
If disobedience to God’s will by the elect poses no threat to God’s
sovereignty, why would a rejection of the gospel by some of the unsaved
pose such a threat?
And would not an irresistible imposition of grace turn it into no grace
at all? Some of these questions are considered in the next chapter.

1. R. C. Sproul, Grace Unknown (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1997), 189.
2. Laurence M. Vance, The Other Side of Calvinism (Pensacola, FL: Vance Publications, rev.
ed. 1999), 478.
3. Canons of Dort (Dordrecht, Holland, 1619); reproduced in Vance, Other Side, 607–26.
4. Canons, III, IV, “Of the Corruptions of Man, His Conversion to God, and the Manner
Thereof,”, 17/8.
5. Ben Lacy Rose, T. U. L. I. P.: The Five Disputed Points of Calvinism (Franklin, TN:
Providence House Publishers, 1996), 37.
6. Westminster Confession of Faith (London: n. p., 1643), X,1.
7. Pastor in Australia to Dave Hunt, September 8, 2000. On file.
8. Editor of British Christian publication, England, to Dave Hunt, September 8, 2000. On file.
9. R. C. Sproul, The Holiness of God (Carol Stream, IL: Tyndale House Publishers, Inc. 1993
ed.), 20.
10. John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, trans. Henry Beveridge (Grand Rapids,
MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1998 ed.), IV: xxv, 17.
11. Ibid., IV: xxv, 22.
12. Piper, Legacy, 135–47; citing Henry F. Henderson, Calvin in His Letters (London: J. M.
Dent and Co., 1909), 77–79.
13. James R. White, The Potter’s Freedom (Amityville, NY: Calvary Press Publishing, 2000),
101.
14. Ibid.
24—When Grace Isn’t Grace
WHAT CALVIN PRACTICED in imposing his Augustinian doctrine upon
those who disagreed was in many instances far from Christianity and
God’s grace. It was, however, consistent with his view of Irresistible Grace
and a God who sovereignly imposes it upon the elect.
If Calvinism were true, how else could God make certain that the blood
of Christ, shed on the cross for sin, would actually bring salvation to the
elect? How could a “totally depraved” sinner be made to believe, except
irresistibly? In his dispute with Rome, Calvin insisted that “divine grace
[acts] irresistibly....”1
White argues that because the Bible says Christ saves sinners, we can’t
change it to say that he “saves synergistically with the assistance of the
sinner himself.”2 Simply believing the gospel and receiving its free gift of
salvation, however, could hardly qualify as “assistance” to God. Yet Pink
likewise argues:
What impression is made upon the minds of those men of the world who,
occasionally, attend a Gospel service...? Is it not that a disappointed God is the One
whom Christians believe in? From what is heard from the average evangelist
today, is not any serious hearer obliged to conclude that he professes to represent
a God who is filled with benevolent intentions, yet unable to carry them out; that
He is earnestly desirous of blessing men, but that they will not let Him?3

Has Pink forgotten that much of the Old Testament was written by
weeping prophets who expressed God’s disappointment and grief over
Israel’s rejection of His love and grace and proffered mercy?
Nevertheless, to the Calvinist, if salvation is merely an offer that man can
refuse, that puts man in charge rather than God. This argument is foolish.
The recipient of a gift can only accept or reject what is offered. To
sovereignly impose either a gift or love would destroy both. Man is not in
charge. If he doesn’t turn to God willingly with his whole heart, he is
eternally doomed.
Calvin’s mistaken belief that God’s sovereignty would be destroyed by
free will necessitated a God who elected some to salvation and
predestined the rest of mankind to eternal hell. No human could have any
choice in the matter. That abhorrent doctrine directly contradicts the
hundreds of scriptures in which God calls upon all men to repent, to
believe, and to receive eternal life as a gift of His grace. Calvinism blinds
its followers to such scriptures. Thus Pink mourns:
It is sad indeed to find one like the late Dr. [A. T.] Pierson—whose writings are
generally so scriptural and helpful—saying, “It is a tremendous thought that even
God Himself cannot...prevent me from defying and denying Him, and would not
exercise His power in such a direction if He could, and could not if He would” (A
Spiritual Clinique). It is sadder still to discover that many other respected and loved
brethren are giving expression to the same sentiments. Sad, because directly at
variance with the Holy Scriptures.”4

In fact, Calvinism is “at variance with the Holy Scriptures.”

God the Puppet Master
The insistence upon a sovereignty that necessarily disallows any choice
to man became the foundation of that system of theology known as
Calvinism today. God’s sovereignty and man’s inability to say, think, or do
anything that God had not predestined has been the continuing
emphasis, reducing man to a puppet with God pulling the strings.
Engelsma asserts, “The Apostle Paul was an avowed, ardent
predestinarian, holding double predestination, election, and
reprobation.”5 What Engelsma attributes to Paul, Jewett claims was the
common belief of every theologian in history worth mentioning: “Every
theologian of the first rank from Augustine to Barth has affirmed...that
God’s election is a righteous and holy decision that he makes according to
his own good pleasure to redeem the objects of his electing love.”6 Man
cannot even believe the gospel without God causing him to do so. And
that He causes so few to believe and predestines so many to eternal
torment is “according to his own good pleasure”! Is this really the “God
and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ” (Ephesians 1:3)?
Piper writes an entire book “to defend the claim that God is not
unrighteous in unconditionally predestining some Israelites to salvation
and some to condemnation.”7
What are we to make of God’s pleadings with all Israel to repent? And
what of the fact that all Israel killed the lamb, sprinkled the blood, were
delivered from Egypt, ate the manna, and “did all drink the same spiritual
drink…that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ” (I
Corinthians 10:4)? Yet God predestined many if not most of them to
eternal condemnation? On the contrary, it was clear that God desired the
eternal salvation of all Israel.
We have no disagreement with Calvinism concerning God’s
righteousness or His justice—the issue is His love. Does He love the whole
world and desire all men to be saved, or doesn’t He? Calvinism limits
God’s infinite love to a select group; the Bible declares His love for all—
and allows man the choice that love requires.
Packer explains the Calvinist position: “God loves all in some ways
(everyone whom he creates...receives many undeserved good gifts...). He
loves some in all ways (that is...He brings them to faith, to new life and to
glory according to his predestinating purpose).”8 But would it really be
love “in some ways” for God to give temporary, earthly “undeserved good
gifts” to those He has predestined to eternal torment? Love “in some
ways”? Absolutely not! Love cannot stop short of giving all it possibly
could to those who are loved.
What love is this that provides temporal blessings for those it
predestines to eternal doom?” Christ said it was a bad bargain for a man
to “gain the whole world, and lose his own soul” (Matthew 16:26). Thus it
could not be love of any kind for God to give even “the whole world” to
one whom He had predestined to “lose his own soul”! Yet Packer calls it a
gift of the “love” that Calvinism attributes to God. Palmer declares:
By the decree of God, for the manifestation of His glory, some men and angels are
predestinated to everlasting life; and others foreordained to everlasting death....
God has appointed the elect to glory.... The rest of mankind God was pleased,
according to the unsearchable counsel of His own will...for the glory of His
sovereign power over His creatures...to ordain them to dishonor and wrath for
their sin, to the praise of His glorious justice.9

How can we fail to denounce such a horrifying misrepresentation of

God? Calvinism is driven to this God-dishonoring belief by its
misunderstanding of sovereignty. And the solution is so simple:
acknowledge that God sovereignly gave to man a genuine power of
choice, and God is exonerated and honored.
A One-Sided Emphasis
Calvinism’s continual emphasis is upon God’s sovereignty, glory,
justice, and wrath. Searching its literature, one finds very little, if
anything, of God’s mercy, grace, compassion, and love for anyone but the
elect.
Irresistible Grace is a human invention imposed upon the Bible. White
writes, “ ‘Irresistible grace’ is a reference to God’s sovereign regeneration
of His elect: any other use of this phrase is in error.”10 He insists upon
precise rules for handling a phrase that isn’t even found in the Bible—a
concept about which Paul and the other apostles obviously knew nothing.
When Moses asked for a revelation of God’s glory, the response was,
“I will make all my goodness pass before thee...[and] the LORD passed by
before him, and proclaimed, The LORD, The LORD God, merciful and
gracious, longsuffering, and abundant in goodness and truth, Keeping
mercy for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, and
that will by no means clear [i.e., forgive without the penalty being paid]
the guilty...(Exodus 33:19; 34:6–7).
Calvinism places great emphasis upon God’s statement, “[I] will be
gracious to whom I will be gracious, and will shew mercy on whom I will
shew mercy” (Exodus 33:19)—but always from the negative point of view,
as though God were pronouncing limitations upon His grace and mercy,
when He is actually declaring their limitless expanse. Piper writes, “In
dispensing mercy and grace God is dependent on nothing but his own
free and sovereign choice.”11
That is true, but God declares repeatedly that His grace and mercy are
for all. The Calvinist, however, sees in God’s declaration to Moses a
limiting of grace and mercy to the elect, whereas the whole tenor of
Scripture tells us that His mercy and grace are boundless. The entire
context of this passage requires the understanding that God is revealing
the infinite expanse of His mercy and grace, and not its limitations—while
at the same time making it clear that grace does not compromise justice:
“and that will by no means clear the guilty” (Exodus 34:7).
A Continuing Cover-Up
Is it possible that Calvin’s tyrannical influence over Geneva, which was
often so unChristlike, was a direct result of his view of God as a harsh
Sovereign more ready to condemn than to save? Tragically, that view of
God persists among many Calvinists today.
Calvinists have avoided the truth about John Calvin the man. The
booklet put out by John Piper and his pastoral staff at Bethlehem Baptist
Church in Minneapolis opens with “Historical Information.” It begins,
“John Calvin, the famous theologian and pastor of Geneva....”12—and
that is it for the “historical information.” There is not one word of the
oppressive behavior of this “Protestant Pope,” which we have
documented in Chapter 5. Is it really fair to readers to praise Calvin
without telling the truth? Doesn’t that give a false impression? Isn’t
Calvin’s conduct as important as his theology? Aren’t the two ultimately
related?
In a more recent book, Piper purports to tell the truth faithfully about
Augustine, Luther, and Calvin, whom he calls “three famous and flawed
fathers in the Christian church...” and thereby to show how “the
faithfulness of God triumphs over the flaws of men.”13 Piper declares that
his aim in this book “is that the glorious Gospel of God’s all-satisfying,
omnipotent grace will be savored, studied and spread for the joy of all
peoples—in a never-ending legacy of Sovereign Joy.”14 All peoples
—including the multitudes predestined to destruction? Can he be
serious? And Sovereign Joy? What is that?
Calvinism’s gospel of “omnipotent grace will be savored, studied and
spread for the joy” of the non-elect, who have been foreordained to
eternal doom and born into this world without any hope of changing their
fate? What mockery! Yet the Calvinist seems blind to what his theory has
done to the God who is love and to how it destroys any sense of urgency
and responsibility to preach the gospel.
Piper reminds us that “The standard text on theology that Calvin and
Luther drank from was Sentences by Peter Lombard. Nine-tenths of this
book consists of quotations from Augustine.... Luther was an Augustinian
monk, and Calvin immersed himself in the writings of Augustine, as we
can see from the increased use of Augustine’s writings in each new
edition of the Institutes...paradoxically, one of the most esteemed fathers
of the Roman Catholic Church ‘gave us the Reformation.’”15 Piper
considers this paradox to be good; we do not, and for the many reasons
we are giving—among them Rome’s heresies that were carried over into
the Reformation by Luther and Calvin. Why have I been so harshly
criticized for pointing out the very “Catholic connection” that Piper
admits?
 His supposed exposé of Calvin’s “flaws” is almost a whitewash. Piper
admits that “fifteen women were burned at the stake” and that there
were some cruelties. The full truth, as we have seen, is far worse. All is
largely excused, however, as “Calvin’s accommodation to brutal times”
(as though Christians have no higher standard than current custom) and
as having been done “in tribute and defense of Protestant martyrs in
France.”16 Piper writes:
The worst was his joining in the condemnation of the heretic, Michael Servetus, to
burning at the stake in Geneva.... Calvin argued the case against him. He was
sentenced to death. Calvin called for a swift execution, instead of burning, but he
was burned at the stake on October 27, 1553.

This has tarnished Calvin’s name so severely that many cannot give his teaching a
hearing. But it is not clear that most of us, given that milieu, would not have acted
similarly under the circumstances...the times were harsh, immoral, and barbarous
and had a contaminating effect on everyone.... There was in the life and ministry
of John Calvin a grand God-centeredness, Bible-allegiance, and iron constancy.

Under the banner of God’s mercy to miserable sinners, we would do well to listen
and learn.... The conviction behind this book is that the glory of God, however
dimly, is mirrored in the flawed lives of his faithful servants.17

With those sweet words, Piper really means that “under the banner of
God’s mercy to some miserable sinners,” the favored elect may “listen
and learn.” But the non-elect can’t listen and learn; they are totally
depraved and without understanding or hope, because Piper’s “God”
keeps them in blindness! And even if they could understand the message
and wanted to believe, it would not be possible, because they have been
damned from eternity past by an immutable decree of the Almighty. Is it
really fair to readers to give such a false impression of “sovereign” joy to
“all peoples”?
And was it really “a grand God-centeredness, Bible-allegiance, and iron
constancy” that produced the ungodly and unbiblical tyranny under
Calvin at Geneva? Review Chapter 5 to see how Calvin is being protected
by Piper. There were dozens of others burned at the stake, not just
Servetus, and there were many Christians who did not practice torture
and burning at the stake in Calvin’s day, thus proving that no one needed
to make “accommodation to brutal times.” Would Paul have, or John, or
Christ? Why Calvin?
Could it be that Calvin’s view of God (as taking pleasure in damning
billions He could save) fit right in with the “harshness of the times”? Given
Calvin’s doctrine, no “accommodation to brutal times” was necessary.
And why doesn’t Piper explain that the reason Calvin pushed for
beheading was because that type of execution was for civil crimes, and
the onus would not be on himself? But the charges pressed against
Servetus by Calvin in court were theological and required the flames.
Calvin was simply trying to circumvent the law. Do we praise him for that?
Eight years later, Calvin was still advising other rulers to exterminate
heretics “like I exterminated Michael Servetus...”! Calvin was a victim of
his times? No, a victim of his theology!
Unbiblical and Unreasonable
As we have already seen, the theory of Irresistible Grace (as with the
rest of Calvinism) conflicts with both Scripture and reason. One of the
most astonishing requirements of TULIP is “regeneration before faith.”
Sproul explains: “Reformed theology views regeneration as the
immediate supernatural work of the Holy Spirit that effects the change of
the soul’s disposition.... Faith is a fruit of regeneration.”18
Having already given some attention to this strange theory, we need to
examine it in more depth. That this dogma is not produced by biblical
exegesis but is necessitated by the other points in TULIP is clear. Nowhere
does the Bible state that regeneration (i.e., the new birth, being born
again, given eternal life, salvation) precedes faith, but there are scores of
scriptures that tell us that faith of necessity comes first:
 • He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved.... (Mark
16:16)

• To them gave he power to become [through the new birth] the

sons of God, even to them that believe on his name. (John
1:12)

• He that believeth on me hath everlasting life. (John 6:47)

• He that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he

live.... (John 11:25)

• …that believing ye might have life through his name. (John

20:31)

• Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved....

(Acts 16:31)

• And many of the Corinthians hearing believed, and were

baptized. (Acts 18:8)

• The gospel of Christ...is the power of God unto salvation to

everyone that believeth.... (Romans 1:16)

• That if thou shalt...believe in thine heart...thou shalt be saved.

(Romans 10:9)

• It pleased God...to save them that believe. (1 Corinthians 1:21)

• ...them that believe to the saving of the soul. (Hebrews 10:39)

Indisputably, the above scriptures, and many others, declare that only
upon believing in Christ, and as a result of that faith, is one “saved.” But if
faith only follows regeneration, one has become a “born-again” Christian
before believing unto salvation—a concept directly contrary to Scripture.
Sproul acknowledges that if one is a Christian, one is regenerate; and if
one is regenerate, one is a Christian.19 But how could one become a
Christian by “regeneration” without believing on Christ through the
Gospel?
Robert Morey claims there is one verse in the Bible that teaches
regeneration before faith: John 3:3. He declares, “Christ places
regeneration by the Spirit as a requirement before one can ‘see,’ i.e.,
believe or have faith in the Kingdom of God…a sinner who is born of the
flesh can not believe the good news of the Kingdom until he is born by
the Spirit.”20
Such loose, wishful thinking is not typical of Morey. To “see” the
kingdom means to “believe or have faith in the Kingdom...”? There is no
such concept as “faith in the Kingdom” anywhere in Scripture: faith is in
God and in Christ. And Christ explains “see” when He reiterates, “Except a
man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom
of God” (John 3:5). One must be in the kingdom of God to see it. Realizing
that it is absurd to speak of “faith in the Kingdom,” Morey rephrases it to
“believe the good news of the Kingdom,” which is equally far from what
Christ says.
Christ commanded us as His disciples to go into all the world and
preach the gospel to every person whom we encounter and who will
listen. The Apostle Paul had a passion to get the gospel to everyone he
could reach. He spent his life persuading Jews and Gentiles to believe in
Christ, disputing in the synagogues and public places. But (as we have
emphasized) if Calvinism is true, Paul wasted his time—and so would we.
The elect need no persuasion, being sovereignly regenerated without
believing on Christ. And the nonelect are totally depraved, even “dead,”
unable to believe unto salvation, no matter how persuasively we preach
the gospel.
Demeaning the Great Commission
 How can God’s grace that brings regeneration reach Calvinism’s
“totally depraved” sinner who is incapable of believing the gospel? Only
by turning grace into Irresistible Grace—a concept unknown in Scripture.
Since man is allegedly unable to believe on Christ, salvation must be
imposed upon him without his first believing the gospel. If Total Depravity
means that no man can believe the gospel unto salvation, then not only
the theory of Irresistible Grace follows but also that man must be
regenerated and made alive before he can believe and be saved.
Yet a biblical view keeps slipping in, betrayed by un-Calvinistic
admissions. For example, the following from Sproul: “Once Luther
grasped the teaching of Paul in Romans, he was reborn.”21 This slip of the
pen contradicts the claim that one must first be regenerated, and only
then can the gospel be understood and believed. Which is it? We are
reborn/regenerated before we can believe the gospel, or through
believing the gospel? Or are we reborn twice, once by God’s sovereign act
before we believe, and then again after first being regenerated and given
the faith to believe?
In contrast, the Bible repeatedly declares in the plainest language (and
in numerous passages) that no man can be changed from unrepentant
sinner to child of God without from the heart believing the gospel and, as
a result of believing, being born of the Spirit of God. But if no one can
believe the gospel without first being regenerated by the Spirit of God, as
Calvinism declares, then not only the damnation of billions but also the
continuance of evil must be God’s will, inasmuch as He chooses to
regenerate so few and to move upon so few hearts with Irresistible
Grace. The Bible, reason, and conscience are all outraged. Dick Sanford
has put it well:
The teaching that [because of God’s sovereignty] a man who’s saved couldn’t have
done anything but be saved, and a man who’s lost couldn’t have done anything
but be lost destroys the concept of grace. It changes grace to simple programming.
Love is not required.... Man isn’t responding to a loving God’s grace, he is simply
 doing what he was programmed to do.22

Building Upon a “Dead” Foundation

It was a serious misunderstanding of “dead in sins” that gave birth to
Irresistible Grace. While this issue was dealt with in Chapter 9, further
discussion was promised under this heading. Inasmuch as White is
recognized as an authority on Calvinism, let him elaborate further upon
its assertions with regard to the “I” in TULIP:
Reformed authors frequently point to the biblical teaching that man is “dead in
sin” as substantiation of their belief that God must be absolutely sovereign and
salvation must be completely of free grace and not a synergistic cooperation
between God and man since man is not capable of cooperating any more than a
corpse.23 If men are dead in sin at all [i.e., by Calvinism’s own peculiar definition],
it follows that they must have spiritual life restored to them before they can do
spiritually good things.... Spiritually dead men believe all sorts of things: just not
those things that are pleasing to God.24

Where does the Bible make this distinction that the spiritually dead
can “believe all sorts of things” but not “those things that are pleasing to
God”? And what does this have to do with salvation, since salvation does
not depend upon being “pleasing to God”? And if spiritual death is
likened to physical death, then the spiritually dead shouldn’t be able even
to think or to believe anything. But if the analogy fails completely in that
respect, how can it be valid with regard to the gospel?
White offers no direct teaching from the Bible. There is none. The
doctrine of Irresistible Grace was deduced from the biblical statement
that men are spiritually dead. The only way to make it fit TULIP was to
equate “spiritual death” with “physical death.” That error became a major
pillar of Calvinism.
A Subtle Surrender to Materialism
Dabney argued, “The corpse does not restore life to itself; after life is
restored it becomes a living agent.”25 What does that have to do with
salvation? Who imagines that the sinner restores himself to life? All the
sinner must do is believe the gospel; it is God who, in response to faith,
creates spiritual life through the new birth.
Calvinists seemingly forget the soul and spirit, of which the body is
only the temporary, earthly house. The physical body of a living person
doesn’t know it’s alive. The soul and spirit constitute the real person who
thinks and wills. Thus, likening spiritual death to a corpse misses the point
and leads to confusion. The error in this analogy becomes even clearer
when one remembers that regeneration unto spiritual life leaves the
person physically unchanged.
In spite of the physical death of the body, the spirit of man continues
to think and will. Christ tells of the rich man who, after his death, could
think and speak and express desires “in hell” (Luke 16:22–31). The tissues
of a living body, including even the brain, know nothing of the “issues of
life” (Proverbs 4:23), yet the Calvinist founds his theory upon the
materialistic fact that a corpse can’t do anything. Piper embraces the
same error: “God is the one who sovereignly decides who will be shown
such mercy [as to be made spiritually alive]....”26
Likewise, Westblade calls spiritual death “a moral one that does not
hinder us physically but clouds the eyes of the heart.... Moral corpses that
we are, the only hope we have for a will that turns its passion toward God
lies in the call of God [that] makes ‘us alive together with Christ....’”27
Here the error goes a bit deeper. Now morals are connected with the
physical body, and because a corpse can’t make moral choices (of course,
neither could the physical body when it was alive)—the natural man,
being spiritually dead, is therefore imagined to be morally dead.
Where does the Bible teach this? Aren’t the Ten Commandments given
to spiritually dead mankind, and don’t the spiritually dead understand the
moral issues and often keep some of the commandments? Paul says that
even the spiritually dead Gentiles “shew the work of the law written in
their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the
mean while accusing or else excusing one another...” (Romans 2:14–15).
Doesn’t God appeal to every man’s conscience?
Abraham reminds the rich man in hell of his past moral failure. Though
his body is a corpse in the grave, the rich man knows his sin—that it is too
late for him—and he expresses earnest moral concern that his living
brothers be warned so that they will not join him in hell. The Calvinist has
created a false analogy, far from both the Bible and common sense.
The Bible offers no justification whatsoever, from Genesis to
Revelation, for concluding that man is morally a corpse. Prone to evil, yes;
but unable to understand that he is a sinner and that Christ died for his
sins? Unable to recognize his sin and incapable of believing the gospel?
No. The Bible teaches that the spiritually dead can understand the gospel
and believe on the Lord Jesus Christ unto salvation (John 5:24–25, etc.).
Adding to the Confusion
J. I. Packer affirms this same basic error: “‘Dead’ evidently signifies
total unresponsiveness to God, total unawareness of his love, and total
lack of the life he gives: no metaphor for spiritual inability and destitution
could be stronger.”28
Evidently? What does that mean? “Total unresponsiveness to God”
and “total unawareness” of God’s love, even in the God-given
conscience? Why doesn’t Scripture state the Calvinist position plainly, if it
is biblical?
Packer offers no biblical support for his assertion. There is none. Here
Calvinists become confused and contradict themselves and one another.
Consider this admission from Schreiner:
We are not saying that they [the totally depraved and spiritually dead] are as evil
as they can possibly be. Jesus says, “...you then, though you are evil, know how to
give good gifts to your children” (Luke 11:13). If people were as evil as they
 possibly could be, they would not desire to give good things to their children [but]
Jesus still says that they are evil. Evil people still give good gifts...and do kind
things....”29

If the totally depraved and spiritually dead are “moral corpses,” how
can they make any moral choices and do any good? That they can is
undeniable. Yet the spiritually “dead” person, even though able to do
some good, is unable to seek God or believe the gospel? That distinction
is never made in Scripture.
White has already been quoted to the effect that although the
spiritually dead man can believe other things, he cannot believe the right
things and certainly not the gospel, though he can understand and reject
it.30 Calvinism thus hinges upon a peculiar definition of the word “dead.”
Those who are “dead in sin” can do this, but they can’t do that—yet these
rules are found nowhere in Scripture.
The gospel is to be preached to “every creature” (Mark 16:15). It
would be irrational for God to send His servants to suffer and die in
preaching the gospel to those who were incapable of understanding and
believing it. Yet Palmer reasons, “Only when the Holy Spirit regenerates
man and makes him alive spiritually can man have faith in Christ and be
saved.”31 In all of the Calvinist writing we have studied, not one verse
from Scripture is cited that clearly states this doctrine. It never would
have been invented were it not required by TULIP.
Irresistible Grace and Spiritual Death
The word “dead” is used several ways in Scripture. Even the saved who
are both physically and spiritually alive are said to be “dead to sin”
(Romans 6:2, 7, 11). Yet every Christian knows that “dead to sin” is not an
absolute statement but must be experienced by faith. Christians are said
to be dead in other ways as well: “dead with Christ” (Romans 6:8;
Colossians 2:20); “dead to the law” (Galatians 2:19); “for ye are dead, and
your life is hid with Christ in God” (Colossians 3:3); “For if we be dead
with him...” (2 Timothy 2:11), etc. Yet none of these biblical analogies fits
perfectly with being physically dead.
As for sinners, the Bible unquestionably teaches that they are
spiritually dead to God. But what does that mean? Adam was spiritually
dead from the moment he sinned, but he heard when God spoke to him
and told him the consequences of his sin. He understood why God made
a covering of animal skin and told him to offer a lamb from the flock, in
anticipation of the Lamb of God who would one day pay the penalty for
sin. Was Adam regenerated? Obviously not. Such a concept is only
introduced in the New Testament. Yet many prior to that time knew God
and looked forward to the Messiah.
Why should spiritual death to God be taken in an absolute sense, while
the Christian’s being dead to sin is not? There is no biblical reason for
doing so. Ephesians 5:14 commands, “Awake thou that sleepest, and arise
from the dead, and Christ shall give thee light.” Those who are physically
alive but spiritually dead are addressed. And that fact presents problems
to the Calvinist, who claims that the spiritually dead can neither hear the
gospel nor respond—yet they are commanded to arise from the dead.
Paul seems to be paraphrasing Isaiah 60:1–2, which was addressed to
unbelieving and rebellious Israel. Apparently, those who are dead in sins
can respond to Christ and be given light.
One would think that Calvinists would want to respond to Ephesians
5:14, but among the many whom I have read, not one has done so. White
gives it a wide berth, as does Piper. None of the thirteen Calvinist authors
of the essays that comprise Still Sovereign even mentions it. Not every
author can cover every scripture—but for none of them to touch it? Isn’t
that odd? Even in his huge and detailed exposition of the issues on both
sides, Vance is unable to quote any Calvinist concerning this scripture.
The Bible contains many difficult passages. Every passage must be
interpreted in the context of the whole. For example, Jehovah’s
Witnesses cite “My Father is greater than I” to “prove” that Christ is not
God. It sounds logical from that one verse. But when we take all of
Scripture, we realize that Christ, who said, “I and my Father are
one...before Abraham was, I AM, etc.,” is God from eternity past, co-
equal and co-existent with the Father and the Holy Spirit.
Likewise, we must compare scripture with scripture (the Bible is its
own interpreter), as we are doing, to understand passages about Election,
God’s enduring vessels of wrath such as Pharaoh, His hating Esau but
loving Jacob, our being dead in sins, and so forth. And to liken spiritual
death to physical death does not fit the Bible as a whole.
Seeking an Understanding
Difficult passages are made plain in the light of those that are very
clear. And there can be no doubt that Jesus plainly taught more than once
that hearing His voice and, as a result, believing the gospel and receiving
the gift of eternal life, is possible for those spiritually dead. For example,
Jesus said, “The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the
voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live” (John 5:25).
Unquestionably, the key phrase “now is” refers to the spiritually dead
being made alive through hearing and believing the gospel in Christ’s day
and throughout time. That fact is clear by His separate and specific
reference to a later physical resurrection.
After declaring that the spiritually dead could hear His voice and live,
Christ refers to a future day of physical resurrection, and the phrase “now
is” is not included: “The hour is coming, in the which all that are in the
graves shall hear his voice, and shall come forth....” Graves were not
mentioned in His first statement concerning the spiritually dead hearing
His voice and living. Christ refers to a future (“The hour is coming”)
resurrection of the physically dead coming out of their graves, some
“unto the resurrection of life” and some “unto the resurrection of
damnation” (John 5:28–29).
The process to which Christ first refers, whereby the spiritually dead
are given life, can be ongoing only through the preaching of and believing
the gospel. Surely this initial receiving of life by the spiritually dead comes
as a result of faith in Christ exactly as He said:
Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that
sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed
from death unto life. (John 5:24)

All of Scripture bears witness to what Christ, the Living Word, is saying
here: “faith cometh by hearing...the word of God” (Romans 10:17) and
through that faith the spiritually “dead in trespasses and sins” (Ephesians
2:1) are given spiritual life, eternal life. Repeatedly we are told that he
who “believeth” is given “everlasting life” through his faith, and as a
result passes “from death unto life.” He is not regenerated by means of
God sovereignly making him spiritually alive without his believing the
gospel and thereafter given faith to believe in Christ, as Calvinism asserts.
No, he is regenerated as a result of putting his faith in Christ.
A Calvinist friend, to whom a preliminary copy of the manuscript of
this book had been given for review, wrote in the margin, “Regeneration
and salvation are distinctly different….” Yet nowhere in Scripture is that
distinction made. Calvinists accuse us of confusing regeneration and
salvation. There is no confusion—they are one and the same.
We’ve already seen that Spurgeon, like MacArthur, equated
regeneration and salvation. How could one be regenerated by the Spirit
of God, making one a child of God, yet still need to be saved? Surely,
sovereign regeneration by the Spirit of God must be what Christ
described to Nicodemus as being “born again.” Yet one can believe the
gospel only after “regeneration”? On the contrary, all the saved have
been born again and all who are born again are saved—which only
happens by faith. Salvation and regeneration are the same work of God.
 According to Calvinism, without believing on Christ, the “elect” are
regenerated. Regeneration can only mean being “born again” by the
Spirit of God into the family of God. What other “regeneration” could
there be? Since we are saved by faith—“by grace are ye saved through
faith...believe…and thou shalt be saved” (Ephesians 2:8, Acts 16:31)—and
Calvinism says that we can’t have faith until we have been regenerated—
we must (according to this strange doctrine) be born again before we are
saved! Though a staunch Calvinist, Dillow realizes the folly and writes,
“Furthermore, the state of salvation occurs simultaneously with the
exercise of this faith and does not occur before it.”32
The “Spiritually Dead” Hear and Believe
That the unsaved, dead in trespasses and in sins, can be reasoned with
and can understand and believe the gospel unto salvation is clear from
many passages such as the following: “Knowing…the terror of the Lord,
we persuade [unsaved] men” (2 Corinthians 5:11); “And he reasoned in
the synagogue [with unregenerate men]...and persuaded the
[unregenerated] Jews and Greeks [to believe]” (Acts 18:4); “he mightily
convinced the [unregenerated] Jews...shewing by the scriptures that
Jesus was Christ” (Acts 18:28); and so forth.
Not only these scriptures, but many more like them, clearly teach that
we are to use reason and Scripture in order to convince the spiritually lost
that they need a Savior. The Holy Spirit uses the persuasion of God’s
Word, which is “quick, and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged
sword” (Hebrews 4:12), to convict the lost and bring them to Christ. To be
reasoned with, persuaded, and convinced, a person must understand the
arguments and believe the truth that they convey. Clearly, then, the
unregenerate can believe on Christ prior to their regeneration—or
persuading them would be a fruitless effort.
God said to the unbelieving and rebellious children of Israel, most of
whom refused to respond, “Come now, and let us reason
together...though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as
snow...” (Isaiah 1:18). If Calvinism were true, God would be wasting His
time and effort reasoning with spiritually dead Israelites who could no
more respond to the truth than a corpse could give itself a blood
transfusion. And if the only way they could repent and believe unto
eternal life was by Irresistible Grace to sovereignly regenerate them, why
would He plead and warn while withholding the only means whereby
those He addressed could respond?
According to Calvinism, God should have first regenerated the “elect”
among Israel, and only then could He have reasoned with them to any
spiritual benefit. But the Bible tells us otherwise.
From these few scriptures that we have considered, as well as from
many similar passages in the Bible, one would never conclude that God
overwhelms elect sinners with Irresistible Grace to regenerate them first
and then gives them faith to believe. On the contrary, He calls upon them
to repent and sends His prophets to warn and persuade them.
The very fact that Paul, Apollos, and the other early evangelists
expended themselves in persuading men to believe the gospel is
completely contrary to the concept of Total Depravity, Irresistible Grace,
and regeneration before faith. Obviously, Paul was not aware of the
principles Calvin would extract from his epistles 1,500 years later. Nor,
apparently, was Jesus, for He kept urging the unregenerate to come to
Him, and from the cross, asked His Father to forgive the very rebels who
crucified and mocked Him.
“Limited” Irresistible Grace?
Even if we assume, for sake of argument, that grace could be
irresistible, the Calvinist’s grace could hardly be called grace for another
reason: it is only for the elect. Yes, being sovereign, God can do as He
pleases. He could damn everyone and no one could complain, for that is
what we deserve. He is not obligated to save anyone.
 But sovereignty is not a total description of God. Numerous passages
have already been cited describing God as infinite in love, mercy, and
grace toward all, and not willing that any perish. Calvinism, however,
limits God’s grace and mercy. Christ was asked whether few would be
saved, and He stated that indeed there would be few (Matthew 7:13–14;
Luke 13:23–28)—not because God limits His grace, but because so few
are willing to repent and believe the gospel; indeed, Christ continually
urged men to enter the path to eternal life.
One would think that these passages where Christ says that few will be
saved would be favorites for Calvinists, especially Matthew 7:14 and Luke
13:23. Yet in searching many books by Calvinists, this author has been
unable to find even one reference to these verses. Why? Because they
contradict Calvinism. Christ very clearly puts upon the unregenerate the
responsibility of entering the kingdom. “Enter ye in at the strait
gate...strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life,
and few there be that find it” (Matthew 7:14).
Enter? Find? These are very un-Calvinistic terms! Why would Christ
give such a warning if one could only come into the kingdom through
having been predestined to salvation and sovereignly regenerated,
without any understanding, repentance, or faith? A. T. Pierson said it
well:
Insofar as any human being sins for himself, he must believe for himself....
Boasting is excluded. I have only to believe...to take Jesus as Saviour...to accept the
white robe of His perfect righteousness, which is “unto all and upon all...that
believe.” [Romans 3:22]33

Why aren’t more saved? The Bible says it is because so few are willing
to come as repentant sinners and enter in at the narrow gate of faith in
Christ alone. Refusing to allow man a free will, Calvinism insists that so
few are saved because God only loves, cares for, and saves a few, though
He could save all—indeed, that saving so few is to God’s greater glory.
Calvin has earlier been quoted:
We shall never be clearly persuaded, as we ought to be, that our salvation flows
from the wellspring of God’s free mercy until we come to know his eternal
election, which illumines God’s grace by this contrast: that he...gives to some what
he denies to others.34

Here we gain further insight into Calvin’s strange thinking: God

illumines His grace by not extending it to multitudes! Somehow, by
limiting His grace, God enlarges our appreciation of the wellspring from
which His mercy flows! And we are to praise Him all the more because He
gives to only some that which He could extend to all? This is Calvinism.
Boettner reminds us that “if any are saved God must choose out those
who shall be the objects of His grace.”35
Imagine a man in a barge, surrounded by a thousand desperate people
who have no life jackets and who can keep themselves afloat in the icy
water for only a few more minutes. This man has the means of saving
every one of them from a watery grave, and more than enough room and
complete provisions on the barge for them all. He plucks only 150 from
certain death, leaving the rest to drown because it pleases him to do so.
The next day, would the newspapers have banner headlines praising
this man for being so kind, gracious, and merciful because he rescued 150
and left 850 to die—or even if he rescued 850 and left to their fate only
150, whom he could have saved? Hardly. By the conscience God has given
to even the “totally depraved” and spiritually dead children of Adam,
everyone would condemn such despicable behavior. No one with any
sense of the morals that God has imprinted upon every conscience could
praise such a man for leaving anyone to drown whom he could have
saved.
Yet we are supposed to believe that God refrains from rescuing
millions, and perhaps billions, whom He just as well could have saved?
And we are to praise Him all the more for having limited His love, mercy,
and grace? Such is the teaching of Calvinism!
The Libel Against God Clearly Stated
W. J. Seaton says, without any apparent sense of irony or shame, “If
God alone can save, and if all are not saved, then the conclusion must be
that God has not chosen to save all.”36 Pink argues that to claim that the
purpose of Christ’s death was to provide salvation for all “is to undermine
the very foundations of our faith.”37
What “faith” is that? How did Augustine and Calvin dare to so malign
the heavenly Father, who the Bible assures us is infinitely more loving,
merciful, kind, and gracious than any human could ever be? Calvinism has
reduced God’s love and compassion to a lower standard than even the
ungodly set for one another.
Piper ends one of his most important books, in which he attempts to
justify the reprobating God of Calvinism, with this exhortation to the elect
readers: “We will entrust ourselves to mercy alone. In the hope of glory
we will extend this mercy to others that they may see our good deeds and
give glory to our Father in heaven.”38 Why should the elect’s good deeds
cause those who have been predestined to eternal doom to give glory to
Calvinism’s God, who closed the door of salvation to them? The God-
given conscience is offended at the Calvinists’ rejoicing in their election,
with no word of sympathy for those who will spend eternity in utter
anguish and for whom, from the beginning, there was never any hope.
And how could they be concerned for those for whom God has no
concern?
As for mercy, only if one is absolutely certain that he is among the
elect (and how can any Calvinist be certain?) dare he trust himself to the
“mercy” of this otherwise unmerciful God. For the non-elect there is no
real mercy, for any blessings in this life are nullified by an eternity of
torment. Nor need the Calvinist be merciful, except (like his God) toward
those to whom it “pleases” him to be merciful.
 John MacArthur writes an entire book39 attempting to prove that God
is loving and merciful toward those whom He has predestined to eternal
torment, because He gives to them sunshine and rain and temporal
blessings
in this brief life. Only a Calvinist could possibly think in such terms! Would
we commend the grace and love of a mass murderer who always gives a
hearty meal to his victims just before he tortures and kills them? Ah, but
God is sovereign and the clay can’t complain about what the potter has
made of it.
On the contrary, we are not mere lumps of clay but creatures made in
the image of God and to whom He has lovingly promised salvation if we
will but believe. Calvinism’s God offends the conscience that the God of
the Bible has put within all mankind, tramples upon the very compassion
with which the One who is love has imbued even the ungodly, and
manifests a lower standard of behavior toward multitudes than He
requires of us toward our enemies. Something isn’t right!
The real issue is not God’s sovereignty, to which all agree. The issue is
God’s mercy and grace motivated by love. Calvinism’s limited and
irresistible “grace” is no grace at all.

1. John Calvin, Acts of the Council of Trent: With the Antidote, ed. and trans. Henry Beveridge
(1851); in Selected Works of John Calvin: Tracts and Letters, 7 vols., ed. Henry Beveridge
and Jules Bonnet (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1983), 3:111.
2. James R. White, The Potter’s Freedom (Amityville, NY: Calvary Press Publishing, 2000),
247.
3. Arthur W. Pink, The Sovereignty of God (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 2nd prtg.
1986), 12.
4. Pink, Sovereignty, 144.
5. David J. Engelsma, Hyper-Calvinism and the Call of the Gospel (Grandville, MI: Reformed
Free Publishing Association, 1980), 53.
 6. Paul K. Jewett, Election and Predestination (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm B. Eerdmans
Publishing Co., 1985 ed.), 3–4.
7. John Piper, The Justification of God: An Exegetical and Theological Study of Romans 9:1–
23 (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2000), 179.
8. J. I. Packer, “The Love of God: Universal and Particular,” in Still Sovereign, ed. Thomas R.
Schreiner and Bruce A. Ware (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2000), 283–84.
9. Edwin H. Palmer, the five points of calvinism (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, enlarged
ed., 20th prtg. 1999), 95, 124–25.
10. White, Potter’s, 137.
11. Piper, Justification, 82–83.
12. John Piper and Pastoral Staff, “TULIP: What We Believe about the Five Points of
Calvinism: Position Paper of the Pastoral Staff” (Minneapolis, MN: Desiring God Ministries,
1997), 3.
13. John Piper, The Legacy of Sovereign Joy: God’s Triumphant Grace in the Lives of
Augustine, Luther, and Calvin (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 2000), 18.
14. Ibid., 38.
15. Ibid., 24–25.
16. Ibid., 32–35.
17. Ibid., 34–38.
18. R. C. Sproul, Faith Alone: The Evangelical Doctrine of Justification (Grand Rapids, MI:
Baker Books, 1995), 26.
19. Ibid., 23.
20. Robert A. Morey, Studies in the Atonement (Southbridge, MA: Crowne Publications, 1989),
82.
21. R. C. Sproul, The Holiness of God (Carol Stream, IL: Tyndale House Publishers, Inc., 1993
ed.), 144.
22. Dick Sanford, Predestination and Election, ed. John R. Cross (self-published monograph, n.
d.), 3.
23. White, Potter’s, 100.
24. Ibid., 105.
25. Robert L. Dabney, The Five Points of Calvinism (Harrisburg, VA: Sprinkle Publications,
1992), 35.
26. Piper, Justification, 178, note 31.
27. Donald J. Westblade, “Divine Election in the Pauline Literature.” In Still Sovereign, ed.
Thomas R. Schreiner and Bruce A. Ware (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2000), 72–73.
28. Packer, “Love,” 283.
29. Thomas R. Schreiner, “Does Scripture Teach Prevenient Grace in the Wesleyan Sense?” in
 Schreiner and Ware, Still, 231.
30. White, Potter’s, 101.
31. Palmer, five points, 27.
32. Joseph C. Dillow, The Reign of the Servant Kings: A Study of Eternal Security and the
Final Significance of Man (Haysville, NC: Schoettle Publishing Co., 2nd ed. 1993), 287.
33. Arthur T. Pierson, The Believer’s Life: Its Past, Present, and Future Tenses (London:
Morgan and Scott, 1905), 20, 33.
34. John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, trans. Henry Beveridge (Grand Rapids,
MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1998 ed.), III: xxi, 1.
35. Loraine Boettner, The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian
and Reformed Publishing Co.), 1932, 95.
36. W. J. Seaton, The Five Points of Calvinism (Carlisle, Pa: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1970),
12.
37. Pink, Sovereignty, 260.
38. Piper, Justification, 220.
39. John MacArthur, Jr., The Love of God (Dallas, TX: Word Publishing, 1996).
25—Grace and Human Responsibility
IN ADDITION to the many scriptures already discussed, Calvinists have
a number of other favorites that they cite in support of TULIP, and
especially of Irresistible Grace. A sufficient number of these will be
presented herein to allow Calvinist leaders to put forth their best
arguments.
A passage used most frequently and with the greatest confidence is
John 6:37,44: “All that the Father giveth me shall come to me.... No man
can come to me, except the Father...draw him....” Note the enthusiasm
with which White “proves” his thesis from this portion of God’s Word:
If believing that man is “so dead” in sin that he is incapable of coming to Christ on
his own is “extreme Calvinism,” then the Lord Jesus beat Calvin to the punch by
1500 years with His preaching in the synagogue recorded in John 6. Here we have
the Lord teaching almost everything Norman Geisler identifies as “extreme
Calvinism.” Jesus teaches that God is sovereign and acts independently of the “free
choices” of men. He likewise teaches that man is incapable of saving faith outside
of the enablement of the Father. He then limits this drawing to the same
individuals given by the Father to the Son. He then teaches irresistible grace on the
elect (not on the “willing”) when He affirms that all those who are given to Him
will come to Him. John 6:37–45 is the clearest exposition of what [Geisler] calls
“extreme Calvinism” in the Bible.

There is good reason why [Geisler] stumbles at this point: there is no meaningful
non-Reformed exegesis of the passage available....

Let us listen to Jesus teach “extreme Calvinism” almost 1500 years before Calvin
was born....“All that the Father gives me will come to me....” The action of giving
by the Father comes before the action of coming to Christ by the individual. And
since all those so given infallibly come, we have here both unconditional election
and irresistible grace...in the space of nine words...!

Since the action of coming is dependent upon the action of giving, we can see that
it is simply not exegetically possible [to deny that] God’s giving results in man’s
 coming. Salvation is of the Lord....1

“Unconditional election and irresistible grace” are found in this

passage? Yarbrough,2 Piper,3 D. A. Carson,4 and J. I. Packer5 (among
others) also think so. However, the words “unconditional,” “irresistible,”
and “grace” are not there—nor can they be found anywhere in the Bible.
And God “limits this drawing to those given by the Father to the Son”?
That is not what Christ says. Whatever Christ means, it must be in
agreement with the message of God’s entire Word—and both
Unconditional Election and Irresistible Grace contradict the entire tenor
of Scripture.
Of course, the “enablement” of God is essential not just for coming to
Christ but for anything a saved or even unsaved man does—even to draw
a breath. Enablement, however, is far from irresistible enforcement
causing man’s action. Yet Yarbrough asserts, “whoever comes to the Son
does so as the result of the Father’s forceful attraction.”6 Forceful? Where
does one find such teaching in this passage?
Sproul insists that a “crucial point of dispute between Rome and the
Reformation [by this he means Calvinism]...was the efficacy of divine
grace. Is grace irresistible and efficacious on its own, or is it resistible and
dependent on human cooperation?” Claiming that it is irresistible, he
quotes Thomas Aquinas for support. But Aquinas is ambivalent: “divine
help...the help of God...the help of grace, etc.”7 To help someone is not to
irresistibly force them. We help people do what they desire to do;
without such desire on their part, such “help” would be coercion!
A Troubling Tendency
Attention has already been called to a troubling apparent lack of
sympathy for the lost among Calvinists. And how could it be otherwise?
They wouldn’t dare to have sympathy for those whom God has been
pleased to predestine to eternal doom.
 Such a theory logically leads to apathy toward evangelism, though
many Calvinists do not succumb to the practical consequences of their
belief. Custance reasons, “If Election guarantees the salvation of all that
are predestined to be saved, why should we be bothered with
evangelism...? What possible difference can it make whether we speak to
men or not?”8 He is right.
It would only be reasonable for a Calvinist to think, “I’m one of the
elect. Let those whom God has damned be damned; there’s nothing I can
do for them. To be concerned would be to complain against God for
predestining them to their just fate.” But the conscience God has placed
within even the ungodly condemns such an attitude.
Yet God himself does not love the lost enough to save them all? He
lacks sufficient mercy for the lost to give them the faith to believe unto
salvation—and is even glorified in sovereignly damning so many and
saving so few? Is this the biblical God?
Morey writes approvingly, “Calvin taught that God loved the elect and
planned their holiness and salvation while...He hated the reprobate and
planned their sin and damnation.”9 “Planned” even their sin? Yes, even
“the mistake of a typist”—that’s Calvinism! If that is the God of the Bible,
Calvinism is true. If not, Calvinism ought to be condemned for its
misrepresentation of God.
The Overwhelming Testimony of Scripture
Literally hundreds of scriptures express God’s genuine concern for
rebellious Israel. He sends His prophets to plead with them to repent so
He will not have to punish them. Surely, Paul reflects God’s heart in his
desire to suffer even eternal damnation if that would rescue his brethren,
the Jews, from hell. He has an equal passion for the salvation of Gentiles
—a selfless passion, which could only come from the indwelling Holy
Spirit. The Lord Jesus Christ wept over Jerusalem, identifying Himself as
Yahweh, the One who has wept over His rebellious children (Isaiah 1:1–9)
for centuries.
We have heard Jesus call out to whosoever was weary, burdened or
thirsty, “Come unto me.” We have heard our Lord repeatedly declare that
whosoever would believe on Him would be saved. And we have seen the
many scriptures which offer salvation to the whole world and declare that
God wants all mankind to be saved, that He gave His Son for the salvation
of the whole world, that He is not willing that any should perish, and that
Christ died for the sins of all.
To annul this clear teaching of Scripture, the Calvinist changes “world”
to “elect” in twenty scriptures. He changes “whosoever” and “all” into
“elect” at least sixteen times each. In addition, he turns the phrase “every
man” into “elect” six times and “everyone” into “elect” three times. In no
case is there anything in the text to justify substituting “elect.” The
change has been made for one reason only: to support Calvinism! Thus,
when Christ says He would draw “all men” to Himself (John 12:32), the
Calvinist claims, “The ‘all’ plainly refers to all of God’s elect.”10 Plainly?
Only if one is a Calvinist.
One would think that the overwhelming testimony of Scripture that
God is love, that He is ever merciful to all and wants all to come to the
knowledge of the truth, would be accepted gratefully and joyfully by all of
Christ’s true followers, and that this good news would be proclaimed to
the world as Christ commanded. Instead, we have seen that in those
places where God’s desire for the salvation of all mankind is clearly
stated, Calvinists still insist that God has chosen to save only a select
number. Great effort is made in order to deny what is so clearly affirmed
of God’s undeserved and unlimited love for all.
One must interpret passages such as “All that the Father giveth me
shall come to me” (John 6:37) and “no man can come to me, except the
Father…draw him” (John 6:44) in harmony with the overall message of
God’s love for everyone. Yet Piper goes to great lengths to “show from
Scripture that the simultaneous existence of God’s will for ‘all persons to
be saved’ (1 Timothy 2:4) and his will to elect unconditionally those who
will actually be saved [John 6:37 is among verses referenced] is not a sign
of divine schizophrenia or exegetical confusion.”11 In fact, this is a
hopeless contradiction unless one recognizes man’s God-given power of
choice.
Consider Christ’s words: “All that the Father giveth me shall come to
me” does not say that “all that the Father draws shall come to me.” Nor
does “No man can come to me, except the Father...draw him” say that all
that the Father draws come to Christ. And surely “I will raise him up at the
last day” (John 6:40, 44, 54) refers to those who actually come to Christ,
and not all who are drawn—certainly not those who are drawn and then
“draw back unto perdition” (Hebrews 10:39). Let us accept what Christ
actually says.
The Calvinist’s Best Foot Forward
In defending our God’s honor and character, great care is being taken
to accurately understand Calvinism. So let us carefully consider White’s
arguments as he develops them from John 6:37–45, a scripture that he
calls “the clearest exposition of what [critics] call ‘extreme Calvinism.’”
White writes:
Literally Jesus says, “No man is able to come to me.” These are words of incapacity
and they are placed in a universal context. All men...lack the ability to come to
Christ in and of themselves.... That is Paul’s “dead in sin” (Ephesians 2:1) and
“unable to please God” (Romans 8:8). It is the Reformed doctrine of total
depravity: man’s inability [here being] taught by the Lord who knows the hearts of
all men....

All men would be left in the hopeless position of “unable to come” unless God
acts, and He does by drawing [some but not all] men unto Christ.... No man can
“will” to come to Christ outside of this divine drawing.... Reformed scholars assert
that the ones who are drawn are the ones who are given by the Father to the Son:
i.e., the elect....

It cannot be asserted that...the Father is drawing every single individual human

 being [or] universalism [everyone is saved] would be the result, for all who are
drawn are likewise raised up at the last day.12

Where in this passage does Jesus mention “total depravity” or “dead in

sin” or “incapacity” or “unable to please God” or anything about an
“elect”? None of these Calvinist theories is there—nor is any part of TULIP
even implied. Jesus does not say that the drawing must be limited to the
elect, or universalism would be the result. Nor does He say that the
drawing is irresistible or unconditional. Yet Sproul says “draw” means to
“compel,”13 and Pink insists it means “impel.”14 Yarbrough writes, “It is
hard to imagine a more explicit description of the Lord’s selective and
effectual drawing activity.”15
On the contrary, those ideas are imposed upon the text because
Calvinism requires them. They are not stated by Christ.
Christ does not say that everyone who is drawn will actually come to
Him and be saved. Yet White is joined by a host of others who consider
this to be one of the premier “predestination passages”16 and a proof text
for Irresistible Grace. Vance cites no less than thirteen authors of that
persuasion.17 Schreiner and Ware also claim that “the one who is drawn
is also raised up on the last day.”18 Yet Christ clearly says it is those who
actually come to Him whom He will raise up at the last day. Calvinists read
into Christ’s words what isn’t there. He actually said:

1. All that the Father giveth me [not all He draws] shall come
to me;

2. and him that cometh to me [not everyone the Father

draws] I will in no wise cast out.

3. And this is the Father’s will...that of all which he giveth me

[not all whom He draws] I should lose nothing, but should
 raise it up again at the last day.

4. Every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him [not
all who are drawn], may have everlasting life: and I will
raise him up....

5. No man can come to me, except the Father which hath

sent me draw him [all who come have been drawn—not all
who are drawn come]: and I will raise him up at the last day
[all who will be raised up have been drawn, but not all who
have been drawn will be raised up].
Read the entire text again carefully (John 6:35–65). Christ does not say
that all whom the Father draws, but all whom He gives to the Son, will
come to Him, and He will lose none of them whom the Father gives Him;
they will all be raised at the last day. Of whom is Christ speaking? We
have seen that the Bible teaches that in God’s foreknowledge He knew
who would believe and who would reject the gospel. The former are
those whom the Father has given to the Son. There is nothing here about
causing a select number to believe unto salvation and choosing not to
save the rest of mankind.
Christ says that no one can come to Him unless the Father draws him.
But He doesn’t say that everyone whom the Father draws actually comes
to the Son and is saved. All Scripture testifies to a genuine desire on God’s
part for all to be saved. Salvation has been procured by Christ and is
genuinely offered to whosoever will believe—but not everyone believes.
God’s sincere desire for all to be saved is stated so often and clearly by
prophets, Christ, and His apostles that we dare not see a contrary
interpretation in this passage.
The element of the Father “drawing” is mentioned by Christ only in
this one passage. On the other hand, the promise is encountered
repeatedly throughout John’s gospel “that whosoever believeth in him
should not perish.… He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life...he
that believeth not the Son shall not see life.… If any man thirst, let him
come unto me, and drink,” etc. (John 3:16–17, 36; 7:37).
Christ’s statement is clear that not everyone who is drawn, but
“everyone which seeth the Son, and believeth on him may have
everlasting life...” (John 6:40). In this passage we encounter not
Unconditional Election or Irresistible Grace but human responsibility.
The Burden of Proof
Without question, Scripture repeatedly presents God’s love,
compassion, and concern for all Israel and the whole world to be saved.
Nor is there any doubt that He offers salvation to all in the clearest
language possible. In contrast, not one scripture can be produced where
any of the tenets of Calvinism is clearly stated. The burden of proof is
upon the Calvinist to show where the Bible clearly teaches his doctrine.
Yet even in this passage, which White calls “the clearest exposition of
Calvinism,” the theory is not plainly stated but must be read into it.
Indisputably, the phrases represented by the first four letters in the
acronym TULIP never appear in the Bible. That fact speaks volumes.
Never does the Bible say that men are by nature incapable of believing
the gospel or of seeking God. Never does it say that a select group is
chosen unconditionally to salvation, or that grace is irresistible, or that
Christ died only for an elect. Never is sovereign regeneration taught as
preceding faith in Christ. The Calvinist cannot produce for any part of
TULIP a clear, unambiguous statement from any part of Scripture! But we
can show hundreds of passages that refute TULIP.
Never does Scripture declare that God desires billions to perish and
that it is His good pleasure (and even to His glory) to withhold from them
salvation. Never is God’s love limited to a select group whom alone He
desires to save. In contrast to a few verses that Calvinists must strain to
support TULIP, hundreds proclaim plainly God’s love and desire for the
salvation of all.
The burden of proof is on the Calvinist to show clearly from the Bible
that his doctrine is true—and he cannot do it.
Those Who “Draw Back Unto Perdition”
Even in this passage about the Father drawing, there is nothing to
indicate that only certain ones are drawn or that the drawing is
irresistible or without the willing desire of the one being drawn.
Moreover, to “draw” someone in the ordinary sense of that word doesn’t
mean they will necessarily come all the way, nor is there anything in
either the Greek or the context to suggest, much less to demand, that
conclusion.
Hundreds of times throughout the Old Testament, God calls through
His prophets to Israel, to the hungry and thirsty, to all who will repent, to
turn to Him, to seek Him, to “taste and see that the Lord is good” (Psalm
34:8). Surely He is seeking to “draw” them to Himself. Not once is there
any suggestion that God will irresistibly cause anyone to come to Him,
much less that He would do this for less than all. And so it is all through
the New Testament. The call is given to “whosover will” again and again.
The invitation is open to all who are willing. For the Calvinist to attempt
to make John 6 the exception that supports TULIP is to pervert the clear
message of the totality of Scripture.
Contrary to the eisegesis forced upon this text to produce an
irresistible drawing unto Christ (which He never taught), many souls are
drawn partway to Christ by the Father and then turn back: “If any man
draw back, my soul shall have no pleasure in him. But we are not of them
who draw back unto perdition [Greek, apoleia]; but of them that believe
to the saving of the soul” (Hebrews 10:38–39).
 The same Greek word, apoleia, is found eight times in the New
Testament. It is often translated “perdition,” and in each case means
eternal damnation. Piper acknowledges that “Most commentators agree
that...[apoleia] indicates clearly the eternal perdition....”19 Consider the
following: “judgment and perdition of ungodly men” (2 Peter 3:7); “And
the beast...goeth into perdition” (Revelation 17:11). Clearly, those who
“draw back unto perdition” cannot be among Calvinism’s elect since the
elect cannot lose their salvation and be damned. Yet those who “draw
back” must have been drawn to some extent. Otherwise, to “draw back”
would be meaningless.
White avoids Hebrews 10:38–39. So do Pink, Sproul, Piper, and a host
of other Calvinists, at least in their books that we have been able to
peruse. In his exhaustive treatment, Vance is unable to quote a single
Calvinist commenting on this passage.
One of many similar letters I have received declared, “You make God
out to be a heavenly wimp who would sure like to save folks, but He just
can’t do it unless they cooperate. But the God of the Bible is mighty to
save, and He does it in spite of the proud, stubborn, self-righteous will of
fallen sinners!”
So God could cause anyone and everyone to believe the gospel and
irresistibly draw them to heaven—but He only does this for a select
number? This is Calvinism—whether one calls it “moderate” or
“extreme”! It has been imposed upon the Bible in violation of the entire
tenor of Scripture from Genesis to Revelation. It is a libel upon the
character of God, a denial of the nature of love, and an offense to the
conscience which God has placed in the heart of every man.
Unquestionably, salvation is a gift of God’s love. Neither a gift, nor
love, as God has designed them and as the Bible presents them, can be
forced upon the unwilling, not even by God. This does not indicate any
weakness in God, much less make of Him a “wimp,” but simply reflects
the nature of love and a gift, as we have amply shown.
That man may rebel against God, disobey His laws, and refuse God’s
offer of the gift of His grace does not in the least demean God’s
sovereignty. In fact, in His sovereignty He has ordained that love and a gift
would require a choice, and He makes that clear in His Word. Another
letter argued similarly:
You say God loves every person in the world and it is His will that each one be
saved.... To even think that God sovereignly allows man to thwart His divine will is
heretical, demeaning to God’s greatness and a fabulous invention of the mind to
accommodate your bias. God controls every animal, every person and all events....
Your views, dear brother, make God’s will subordinate to man’s will, and represent
God’s plan of salvation as a failure since all men are not saved....20

Those who maintain this position could hardly have thought it through
very carefully. We’ve noted the obvious: If God controls every person and
event, then rape, murder, and all crime and wars and suffering must be
His doing according to His will—clearly not the case. In the counsel of His
will He allows that which is not His perfect will in order to give man the
power of choice. Evil is surely the opposite of God’s will. Therefore, we
can be certain that it is not God’s will for evil to reign on earth. Satan is
the god of this world, and “the whole world lieth in wickedness [i.e., in
the wicked one, Satan]” (1 John 5:19). God allows this state of affairs only
for a time.
Without the power of choice, we could not love God or one another.
Man has been given the awesome responsibility to choose for himself.
Sadly, most choose evil over good and self instead of God. He does not
force salvation upon man any more than He forces anyone to obey the
Ten Commandments.
Is It All a Charade?
The Calvinist claims that God, in His sovereignty (if He so desired),
could stop all sin and cause everyone always to keep the Ten
Commandments perfectly. This would be possible only if man had no free
will. If that were true, however, what would be the point of giving the
Law? God could have controlled human thoughts, words, and deeds so
that without even knowing the Law, everyone would do exactly what the
Law required.
Incredibly, Calvinism teaches that God gave the Ten Commandments,
caused man to break them, then damned him for doing so. The Bible is
thereby turned into a charade, man into a puppet, and God into a
monster whom the atheist rightly rejects.
There can be no doubt, however, that man, not God, is the cause of
evil on earth, having selfishly and foolishly chosen to oppose God’s will.
Nor can it be doubted that God’s Spirit has written His laws in every
conscience and seeks to draw all men unto Christ. Yet, sadly, even those
to whom God has revealed Himself in great power and miracles have
often rebelled and gone to hell.
God said of Israel, “The LORD thy God hath chosen thee to be a special
people unto himself...because the LORD loved you...” (Deuteronomy 7:6–
8). Similar statements are made throughout the Old Testament, God even
calling Israel His wife. Again, “When Israel was a child, then I loved him.…
I drew them with...bands of love.… My people are bent to backsliding
from me...” (Hosea 11:1–8). All Israel was drawn—many drew back.
Israel is called God’s elect in both Old and New Testaments (Isaiah
45:4; 65:9, 22; Matthew 24:31, etc.). There is no question that God chose
Israel, called her, and drew her with “bands of love” (Hosea 11:4) unto
Himself. Yet most Israelites went into idolatry, refused to repent, and
were surely not among the redeemed. God had to say repeatedly, “my
people have forgotten me days without number” (Jeremiah 2:32); “they
have burned incense to vanity” (18:15).
Many who are drawn to the Lord refuse to believe on Him unto
salvation. Christ said, “For many are called, but few are chosen”
(Matthew 20:16; 22:14). And even some who are chosen are not willing
to fulfill their calling but betray the One who they claimed was their Lord.
Jesus said, “Have not I chosen you twelve, and one of you is a devil? He
spake of Judas Iscariot...” (John 6:70–71).
Jesus called Judas, drew him, and chose him to be a disciple. Judas
followed Jesus with the other disciples, called Jesus “Lord,” and went
forth with the other disciples “to preach the kingdom of God, and to heal
the sick” (Luke 9:2). But Judas was like those who will say, “Lord, Lord,
have we not prophesied in thy name?...cast out devils?...done many
wonderful works?” and yet Jesus will say to them, “I never knew you:
depart from me” (Matthew 7:22–23). These have not lost their salvation,
since they were never saved. “I never knew you: depart from me!” will be
Christ’s pronouncement upon those who were drawn to Him but never
came all the way to know Him as Savior and Lord.
Except the Father Draw Him: What Does that Mean?
No one naturally seeks the Lord; we all seek our own selfish desires,
and no one can come to Christ except the Father draw him. But the Holy
Spirit is in the world to convict all of their sin and need (John 16:8–11),
the gospel is being preached, the Father is drawing everyone (even
through the witness of creation and conscience). Sadly, many like Judas
come partway, even seem to be disciples, then draw back unto perdition.
Jesus did not and could not teach an irresistible drawing in this
passage or elsewhere, because it would have contradicted the rest of
Scripture. Throughout her troubled history, God sought to draw Israel
through weeping prophets. At times she heeded, but the next generation
“drew back unto perdition.” His dealings with Israel offer proof of God’s
desire for the salvation of all mankind, all of whom He draws—though
few respond.
Yes, Christ clearly said, “No man can come to me, except the
Father...draw him.” White claims that statement indicates a total
incapacity on man’s part to come to Christ—that man can’t cooperate in
any way but must be irresistibly drawn without faith or consent. That’s
not being drawn but propelled against one’s will.
Eisegetical Illusion
To support his assertions, White quotes Calvin, to whom he refers with
great admiration. Apparently, Calvin’s tyrannical rule of Geneva, where
he even resorted to torture of those who disagreed with him, gives no
cause for suspecting Calvin’s understanding of and fidelity to Scripture.
In fact, such behavior, so completely contrary to the Spirit of Christ
and God’s Word, is a compelling indication that Calvin’s understanding of
God’s sovereignty, mercy, and love was flawed. As the Apostle John
writes, “He that saith he abideth in him ought himself also so to walk
[conduct himself], even as he [Christ] walked” (1 John 2:6). That standard
applies to every Christian everywhere at every time in history—and at
times, Calvin acted so far from it that no excuse can justify his behavior.
Yet apparently oblivious to the historic facts, reflecting an admiration
common among Calvinists, White writes:
John Calvin is admitted, even by his foes, to have been a tremendous exegete of
Scripture. Fair and insightful, Calvin’s commentaries continue to this day to have
great usefulness and benefit to the student of Scripture. Here are his comments on
John 6:44:

“To come to Christ being here used metaphorically for believing, the Evangelist, in
order to carry out the metaphor in the apposite clause, says that those persons are
drawn whose understanding God enlightens, and whose hearts he bends and
forms to the obedience of Christ...hence it follows that all are not drawn, but that
God bestows this grace on those whom he has elected.

“True, indeed, as to the kind of drawing, it is not violent, so as to compel men by

external force [such as Calvin himself used!]; but still it is a powerful impulse of the
Holy Spirit, which makes men willing who formerly were unwilling and reluctant. It
is a false and profane assertion, therefore, that none are drawn but those who are
willing to be drawn, as if man made himself obedient to God by his own
 efforts….”21

Calvin was right that Christ uses “coming to Him” for “believing on
Him.” Schreiner and Ware write, “The ‘coming’ of John 6:37 is
synonymous with ‘believing.’ That the words coming and believing are
different ways of describing the same reality is confirmed by what Jesus
says in John 6:35, ‘I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never
hunger, and he that believeth on me shall never thirst.’”22
Once again we see that faith in Christ through the gospel precedes,
and is, the condition of the new birth and salvation (1 Corinthians 4:15).
Faith is not bestowed after one has been regenerated. The fact that
coming is the same as believing also contradicts Unconditional Election
and Irresistible Grace, for which “coming” must be without faith, as
though a dead man were being carried. Yes, the Father draws men to
Christ—but unless they truly believe in Him, they have not “come” all the
way but have drawn back unto perdition.

1. James R. White, The Potter’s Freedom (Amityville, NY: Calvary Press Publishing, 2000),
155–56.
2. Robert W. Yarbrough, “Divine Election in the Gospel of John.” In Still Sovereign:
Contemporary Perspectives on Election, Foreknowledge, and Grace, ed. Thomas R.
Schreiner and Bruce A. Ware (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2000), 50–51.
3. John Piper, “Are There Two Wills In God?” In Schreiner and Ware, Still, 107.
4. D. A. Carson, “Reflections on Assurance,” Westminster Theological Journal, Vol. 54.
5. J. I. Packer, “The Love of God: Universal and Particular.” In Still, 283.
6. Yarbrough, “Divine.” In Still, 50.
7. R. C. Sproul, Faith Alone: The Evangelical Doctrine of Justification (Grand Rapids, MI:
Baker Books, 1995), 137–38.
 8. Arthur C. Custance, The Sovereignty of Grace (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and
Reformed Publishing Co., 1979), 277.
9. Robert A. Morey, Studies in the Atonement (Southbridge, MA: Crowne Publications, 1989),
296.
10. Arthur W. Pink, Exposition of the Gospel of John (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan
Publishing House, 1975), 682.
11. Piper, “Two Wills.” In Still, 107.
12. White, Potter’s, 158–60.
13. R. C. Sproul, Chosen by God (Carol Stream, IL: Tyndale House Publishers, Inc., 1986), 69.
14. Pink, Exposition, 338.
15. Yarbrough, “Divine.” In Still, 51.
16. D. A. Carson, Divine Sovereignty and Human Responsibility (Atlanta, GA: John Knox
Press, 1981), 174.
17. Laurence M. Vance, The Other Side of Calvinism (Pensacola, FL: Vance Publications, rev.
ed. 1999), 508.
18. Schreiner and Ware, Introduction to Still Sovereign, 15.
19. John Piper, The Justification of God: An Exegetical and Theological Study of Romans 9:1–
23 (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2000), 201.
20. To Dave Hunt, n. d., received September 10, 2000. On file.
21. John Calvin, Commentary on the Gospel of John, The Comprehensive John Calvin
Collection (Ages Digital Library, 1998); cited in White, op. cit., 161.
22. Schreiner and Ware, Still, 14.
26—Calvin’s Errors Are Serious
JOHN CALVIN BELIEVED and practiced a number of things that many of
those who call themselves Calvinists today would consider seriously
wrong, if not heresy. For example (as we have seen), he dogmatically
affirmed the efficacy of infant baptism to effect forgiveness of sins and
entrance into the Kingdom. And in spite of his quarrel with Rome, he
taught that being baptized by a Roman Catholic priest (done to Calvin as
an infant) was efficacious for eternity. The priest could even be a rank
unbeliever.
Had he not maintained this Roman Catholic false doctrine, Calvin
would have had to submit to rebaptism, which was repugnant to him. He
derided the Anabaptists for opposing infant baptism. Their valid, biblical
reason—that an infant has not believed in Christ—was scorned by Calvin,
and his wrath and that of the other Reformers came upon the
Anabaptists. These true evangelicals were persecuted and martyred by
both Catholics and Protestants for being baptized by immersion after they
were saved by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone.
Rejection of infant baptism was one of the two charges for which
Servetus (prosecuted by Calvin the lawyer) was burned at the stake.
Calvin wrote, “One should not be content with simply killing such people,
but should burn them cruelly.”1 [See Chapter 5 under the subheading
“The Torture and Burning of Servetus” for additional context.]
Calvin promotes the error of baptismal regeneration, of salvation by
“some secret method...of regenerating” without “the hearing of faith [of
the gospel],” that children of the elect are automatically children of God,
and of equating circumcision with baptism: “The promise...is one in both
[circumcision and baptism]...forgiveness of sins, and eternal life...i.e.,
regeneration.... Hence we may conclude, that...baptism has been
substituted for circumcision, and performs the same office.”2
Infant Baptism and Circumcision
Nothing more than this section of his Institutes is needed to disqualify
Calvin as a sound teacher of Scripture and to call into question his entire
concept of salvation. His sacramentalism mimics Roman Catholicism:
We have...a spiritual promise given to the fathers in circumcision, similar to that
which is given to us in baptism...the forgiveness of sins and the mortification of the
flesh...baptism representing to us the very thing which circumcision signified to the
Jews....

We confess, indeed, that the word of the Lord is the only seed of spiritual
regeneration; but we deny...that, therefore, the power of God cannot regenerate
infants.... But faith, they say, cometh by hearing, the use of which infants have not
yet obtained....

Let God, then, be demanded why he ordered circumcision to be performed on the

bodies of infants...by baptism we are ingrafted into the body of Christ (1 Cor
xii.13) [Therefore] infants...are to be baptised....

See the violent onset which they make...on the bulwarks of our faith....
For...children...[of] Christians, as they are immediately on their birth received by
God as heirs of the covenant, are also to be admitted to baptism.3

This same baptismal regeneration, contempt for believers’ baptism,

and blindness concerning the difference between circumcision and
baptism remains among many Calvinists today. Under the heading,
“Infant Baptism,” in his Geneva Study Bible, R. C. Sproul echoes Calvin:
Historic Reformed [Calvinist] theology contests the view that only adult, believer’s
baptism is true baptism, and it rejects the exclusion of believers’ children from the
visible community of faith.... Rather, the scriptural case for baptizing believers’
infants rests on the parallel between Old Testament circumcision and New
Testament baptism as signs and seals of the covenant of grace.4

On the contrary, baptism belongs to the new covenant and is only

upon confession of faith in Christ (Acts 8:37); circumcision was under the
old covenant and without faith—and neither one saves the soul.
Moreover, not only did circumcision not effect regeneration, forgiveness
of sins, or salvation, it couldn’t even be a symbol thereof, as T. A.
McMahon reminds us, being only for males.5 How could women be
saved? And it was for all male descendants of Abraham. Even Ishmael, a
rank unbeliever, was circumcised—as were millions of Jews.
If, as Calvin taught, circumcision effects “forgiveness of sins, and
eternal life...i.e., regeneration,”6 how could Jews who were circumcised
be lost; and why did Paul cry out to God “for Israel...that they might be
saved” (Romans 10:1)? Why was he so concerned for the salvation of
circumcised Jews that he said, “I could wish that myself were accursed
from Christ for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh: who are
Israelites...” (Romans 9:1-4)? Clearly, circumcision did not provide
“forgiveness of sins and eternal life”—nor does baptism!
Was Calvin Really the Great Exegete?
Calvin’s arguments reflect a bias in favor of the sacramentalism he
learned as a Roman Catholic from Augustine, which he elaborated upon
and thereafter was compelled to defend. His logic often betrays a
spiritual immaturity. Incredibly, Calvin argued:
Such in the present day are our Catabaptists, who deny that we are duly baptised,
because we were baptised in the Papacy by wicked men and idolaters.... Against
these absurdities we shall be sufficiently fortified if we reflect that by baptism we
were initiated...into the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit; and,
therefore, that baptism is not of man, but of God, by whomsoever it may have
been administered [if clergy].

Be it that those who baptised us were most ignorant of God and all piety, or were
despisers, still they did not baptise us into…their ignorance or sacrilege, but into
the faith of Jesus Christ, because the name they invoked was not their own but
God’s.... But if baptism was of God, it certainly included in it the promise of
forgiveness of sin, mortification of the flesh, quickening of the Spirit, and
communion with Christ.7
 In Calvinism, the physical act of baptism has spiritual power and
imparts regeneration. To be baptized by Roman Catholic priests who
were not even Christians, but promoted a false gospel, was acceptable to
Calvin because they used the name of God when they administered it!
Even to be baptized by despisers of Christ and God would bring the
“promise of forgiveness of sin...” so long as they were “part of the
ministerial office.”
Incredibly, though a major figure in the Protestant Reformation, Calvin
honored Rome’s corrupt and unsaved priests as God’s ministers! Yet he
condemned and persecuted those who came out of that Antichrist system
through faith in Christ for being subsequently baptized as believers
according to God’s holy Word.
Calvin taught that only the clergy, whether Roman Catholic or
Protestant, could baptize or administer the Lord’s Supper:
It…is improper for private individuals to take upon themselves the administration
of baptism; for it, as well as the dispensation of the Supper, is part of the
ministerial office. For Christ did not give command to any man or woman whatever
to baptise, but to those whom he had appointed apostles.8

Thus, Calvin also accepted Rome’s claim that her bishops were the
successors of the twelve Apostles, and from them her priests received
divine authority. And he was a leader of the Reformation? Contrary to
what Calvin taught about an exclusive “ministerial office,” our Lord Jesus
Christ clearly commanded the original disciples to make disciples and to
teach every disciple they won to Him through the gospel to “observe all
things whatsoever I have commanded you” (Matthew 28:20).
Tolerating Calvin’s Errors
Obviously, “all things” meant that each new disciple made by the
original disciples was to make disciples, baptize them, and teach them to
do likewise. Every true Christian today is a disciple of a disciple of a
disciple all the way back to the original disciples—each one having taught
the new disciples that they, too, must observe all things Christ
commanded the original twelve. Were the twelve commanded to baptize
and to minister the Lord’s Supper? Then so is every true Christian as a
successor of the Apostles!
Here we have proof enough that all believers in Christ are qualified to
do whatever the original disciples did, including ministering baptism and
the Lord’s Supper. Christ’s own words effectively destroy the fiction of a
special clergy class lording it over a laity. One would think that this “great
exegete” could see that fact clearly from the Great Commission, but he
didn’t. This elementary error was the basis of the popish power Calvin
wielded in oppressing the citizens of Geneva.
Worse yet, how could the priests and bishops of the Roman Catholic
Church, who were not even saved but believed and taught a false
salvation through works and ritual, qualify as the successors to the
Apostles? And how could Calvinist ministers, who disagreed so markedly
with Rome on the gospel, nevertheless be co-successors, sharing with
Roman Catholic clergy this exclusive right to baptize and administer the
Eucharist? Calvin’s “brilliant exegesis” led him into grave error and
contradictions so blatant that one wonders how today’s Calvinists can
overlook or tolerate them.
Furthermore, Calvin also taught that there was no difference between
the baptism practiced by John the Baptist and the baptism Christ
commanded His disciples to perform: “I grant that John’s was a true
baptism, and one and the same with the baptism of Christ...the ministry
of John was the very same as that which was afterwards delegated to the
apostles.”9 That is so clearly wrong that we need not discuss it. John’s
baptism “unto repentance” (Matthew 3:11) had nothing to do with the
believer’s identification with Christ in His death, burial, and resurrection,
as is the case with the baptism Christ told His disciples to practice.
The fact that Paul considered John’s baptism different and
inappropriate for believers in Christ (Acts 19:1–6) is explained away by
Calvin with the fantastic idea that these hadn’t received John’s baptism,10
even though, in response to Paul’s question, “Unto what then were you
baptized?”, they replied, “Unto John’s baptism.”
It seems that Calvinists are willing to tolerate a great deal of error
taught by John Calvin and still consider him to be one of the greatest
exegetes in history. From a careful study of what Calvin taught in his
Institutes, however, we have a far different opinion.
That Calvin was wrong on so many other points ought to ease the pain
of having to admit that perhaps he was also wrong on TULIP. Yet the high
regard in which Calvin is held apparently prevents this simple admission
of serious error on his part.
Finding the “Unavailable” Exegesis
There is no question that the Calvinist interpretation of John 6:37–45 is
contrary to the entire tenor of Scripture. Let us examine it, too, in this
specific context. In John 6:65, Jesus uses slightly different language in
saying the same thing: “no man can come unto me, except it were given
[Greek, didomi] unto him of my Father.” Note this is not a giving of the
sinner to the Son, but a giving to the sinner (given him), making it possible
for him to come to Christ.
Surely, it is justifiable to take what He says in verse 65 as at least a
possible indication of what Christ meant by the Father drawing: i.e., that
the Father gives the opportunity to come. Indeed, we have an abundance
of scriptures indicating that this opportunity is given to the whole world
through the gospel. This simple understanding adequately refutes White’s
claim that “there is no meaningful non-Reformed exegesis of the passage
available.” Certainly this is at least a possible one.
In fact, we find that the very same Greek word (didomi) is used for
“given” multiple times in the New Testament in a way that allows a
distinctly non-Calvinist interpretation of Christ’s words here, and which is
also consistent with the overall biblical emphasis upon God’s love and
mercy. For example, Paul uses didomi when he says that God “giveth to
all life, and breath, and all things” (Acts 17:25). Some of the many other
places where didomi is used to indicate something given by God, and
which men can either receive or reject, obey or disobey, and which
involves their cooperation are as follows:

• The law was given by Moses...(John 1:17). No one is forced to

obey, although there are serious consequences for
disobedience.

• [I] would have given thee living water (John 4:10). The water
would not be forced upon her against her will. She would have
to want it and willingly drink it.

• I have given them thy word...(John 17:14). The disciples had to

willingly receive the Word and obedience thereto was by their
choice—it wasn’t forced upon them.

• The cup which my Father hath given me, shall I not drink it?
(John 18:11). Jesus pleaded with the Father that if salvation
could come to mankind any other way to spare Him this cup.
However, He drank it out of obedience to the Father and love
for us.

• Through the grace given unto me...(Romans 12:3; 15:15;

Galatians 2:9, etc.). Paul uses this expression with this same
Greek word a number of times. This is not Calvinism’s mythical
Irresistible Grace. God’s grace was not imposed upon him so
that he could not disobey or fail to fulfill all God’s will, or did
not need to cooperate in the fulfillment thereof.
Surely, all of these usages (and others like them) give us ample reason
for the very non-Reformed exegesis that White says is not “available.”
The Father draws the lost to Christ by giving (didomi) to them the
opportunity to believe. The giving of those who believe to the Son is of
another nature. And those who are drawn by the Father must, in
response to the Father’s drawing, “see” Him with the eyes of faith and
believe on Him to be saved. The giving of the redeemed by the Father to
the Son is something else—a special blessing for those who believe.
Christ is saying that we cannot demand salvation—it must be given to
us from God. Salvation involves a new birth, and no man can regenerate
himself into God’s family; that privilege can only be given of God and only
God has the power to effect it by His Holy Spirit. In all of this, however,
there is neither rational nor biblical basis for believing that God only
grants this for a select group and withholds it from the rest of mankind,
or that He irresistibly forces it upon anyone.
Christ does not say that the Father forcefully pulls or drags or
irresistibly compels anyone to come to Him. In fact, Christ gives every
indication that there is definite responsibility on the part of those who are
being drawn to believe in Him: “He that believeth on me shall never
thirst.… Ye also have seen me, and believe not” (John 6:35–36); “Ye will
not come to me, that ye might have life” (John 5:40). Not “Ye cannot
because my Father will not draw you,” but “ye will not.”
Instead, the Calvinist view of “draw him” renders “come to me”
meaningless, absolving the sinner of any responsibility to come, repent,
or believe. One cannot be held responsible for what one cannot do. As we
have more than amply documented, Calvinism teaches that the sinner is
dead and cannot respond unless God first of all regenerates him through
Irresistible Grace and then causes him to believe. Nowhere can such
teaching be found in Scripture—and certainly not in this passage.
Jesus said, “My Father giveth you the true bread from heaven” (John
6:32). There is no indication of force-feeding. In fact, Christ says, “I am the
bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that
believeth on me shall never thirst.... This is the will of him that sent me,
that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have
everlasting life...he that believeth on me hath everlasting life” (John 6:35,
40, 47). He goes on to say, “I am the living bread which came down from
heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever...” (verse 51).
The metaphor Christ chose of eating and drinking contradicts
Calvinism. It is clear from this entire passage that eating and drinking
Christ’s body and blood is a metaphor for believing on Him, as Schreiner
and Ware admit: “To come to Jesus is to satisfy one’s hunger and to
believe in him is to quench one’s thirst.”11 Although the Calvinist tries to
say that the faith to believe is given by God in order to cause the elect to
believe, that idea hardly fits the analogy of eating and drinking. Surely it is
the responsibility of the one to whom the Father gives the “bread of life”
willingly to eat it. There is no hint that the bread of life is force-fed to the
elect through Irresistible Grace.
Human Responsibility
Christ’s words, “No man can come to me except the Father draw him,”
are not the same as White’s interpretive “No man is able to come to me.”
Christ is not denying either the necessity or capability on man’s part of
active acquiescence and faith. The Father alone can draw, but men must
come to Christ as this grace is given to them of the Father. And hundreds
of passages tell us that this giving (didomi) is a gift of God’s love, and like
the giving of the Son to die for our sins, is for the whole world. Such an
understanding is consistent with Scripture’s repeated invitations to come
—invitations that would be meaningless without a definite responsibility
on man’s part and ability to “come” when he is “drawn.” Man has a
choice to make: to come or not to come, to eat and drink of Christ or of
the things of this world and Satan.
Yes, the Bible says that “there is none that seeketh after God”
(Romans 3:11). But that is only one side, and the Bible makes it clear that
this statement does not mean, as Calvinism insists, that no man is able to
seek. It is not that man lacks the ability to seek God or that God holds
back the essential grace for coming. The problem is that man, in and of
himself, lacks the desire to seek God. Blinded by sin and obsessed with
self, man seeks everything except God (including false gods he finds more
appealing) until, by the Holy Spirit, convicted of sin and convinced of his
need of a Savior, he is drawn to Christ.
In infinite love and boundless grace, God continually encourages man
to seek Him. Though many, perhaps the vast majority (broad is the road
to destruction), reject the wooing of the Holy Spirit and Christ’s call to
come to Him, many do respond to this call in repentance toward God and
faith in our Lord Jesus Christ, the message that Paul preached (Acts
20:21). That is why Paul expended himself—preaching the gospel in the
attempt to persuade men (2 Corinthians 5:11) to come to Christ—and we
should also.
Men are responsible to respond to conscience, to the gospel, and to
the striving of the Holy Spirit in their lives (Genesis 6:3). Nor can we as
believers avoid our responsibility to obey Christ’s command to preach the
gospel and to do so in the power of the Holy Spirit and with sincere
conviction and persuasion. Paul and Barnabas “so spake, that a great
multitude both of the Jews and also of the Greeks believed” (Acts 14:1).
So must we, “as the oracles of God” (1 Peter 4:11).
The Universal Thirst that Only God Can Quench
David said, “When thou saidst, Seek ye my face; my heart said unto
thee, Thy face, LORD, will I seek” (Psalm 27:8). The sons of Korah sang, “As
the hart panteth after the water brooks, so panteth my soul after thee, O
God” (Psalm 42:1). Other scriptures could be quoted in the same vein.
Not just an elect, but all men in all times and places (and that includes
even the wicked and unrighteous, which we all are by nature) are
exhorted thus:
Seek ye the LORD while he may be found, call ye upon him while he is near: let the
wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts: and let him return
unto the LORD, and he will have mercy upon him; and to our God, for he will
abundantly pardon. (Isaiah 55:6–7)

God that made the world...hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell
on all the face of the earth...that they should seek the Lord, if haply they
might...find him, though he be not far from every one of us....(Acts 17:24–27)

The Calvinist interpretation of John 6, in its attempt to prove Limited

Atonement and Irresistible Grace, makes such scriptures as the above
meaningless. There is no way that “wicked...unrighteous...all nations of
men” can be turned into the “elect”! Unquestionably, the Bible teaches
human responsibility to believe in and seek the Lord. It does not teach
that only an elect group are irresistibly made to come to God and to
Christ without any willingness or desire on their part. Christ’s invitation,
“Come unto me,” surely means that, though man would not come of his
own accord without the Father drawing him, yet when the Father through
the Holy Spirit draws men to Christ they are able as moral agents to yield
and to come by a genuine act of faith and volition—or to resist and not
come.
Why would God urge to seek Him, and Christ invite to come to Him,
men who, if Calvinism is true, are totally depraved and dead in sin to the
extent that they can’t even hear His voice or make a move toward Him?
Indeed, if Calvinism were true, why would Christ even say “come unto me
and drink” to anyone? That invitation wouldn’t be appropriate for the
elect, since their coming is only by the Father irresistibly drawing them.
Nor would it be appropriate for the non-elect, because there is no way
they could come even if they had the desire.
The extreme view that interprets human depravity and being dead in
sin to mean that the natural man cannot seek after and find God is
repudiated by literally hundreds of Bible verses. The few places where it
says man doesn’t seek God are far outweighed by the scores of passages
that encourage seekers after God. Here are just a few:

• Seek the Lord...seek his face continually. (1 Chronicles 16:11)

• If ye seek him, he will be found of you.... (2 Chronicles 15:2)

• Thou, Lord, hast not forsaken them that seek thee. (Psalm
9:10)

• They shall praise the Lord that seek him.... (Psalm 22:26)

• They that seek the Lord shall not want any good thing. (Psalm
34:10)

• Let all those that seek thee rejoice and be glad.... (Psalm 40:16)

• Let not those that seek thee be confounded.... (Psalm 69:6)

• They that seek the Lord understand all.... (Proverbs 28:5)

• For it is time to seek the Lord.... (Hosea 10:12)

• Seek ye the Lord, all ye meek of the earth.... (Zephaniah 2:3)

If men not only do not, but cannot, seek God unless He causes them to
do so with Irresistible Grace, what do all these passages, and scores more
like them, mean? That unregenerate man can be motivated to seek after
and even to find God is clear from many scriptures. God urges unbelieving
and rebellious Israel, “And ye shall seek me, and find me, when ye shall
search for me with all your heart” (Jeremiah 29:13). Irresistibly drawn
without any understanding? No—“He that cometh to God must believe
that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him”
(Hebrews 11:6).
More Contradictions
Calvin himself at times contradicted his own theories. He taught that
all men “are born and live for the express purpose of learning to know
God” and therefore “it is clear that all those who do not direct the whole
thoughts and actions of their lives to this end fail to fulfill the law of their
being.”12 In this instance, Calvin was agreeing with what the Bible says—
but he was contradicting Calvinism. How could the very “law of their
being” compel all mankind to seek God, when they are unable to do so? It
would make sense for men to be unwilling to fulfill the “law” of their
being, but to be unable to do so would indict the Creator.
Having acknowledged the fact that God made man to seek, to find, and
to know Him, how could Calvin believe in Total Depravity? Would God
have made all men for the very purpose of seeking after and knowing
Him, as Paul plainly said on Mars’ Hill (Acts 17:26–28), and at the same
time neglect to provide the very grace they need for that seeking and
knowing? And why would God predestine to damnation before their birth
multitudes of those He would bring into the world “for the express
purpose of learning to know” Him?
Calvin further contradicted himself and Scripture with the added
argument that when men “do think of God it is against their will; never
approaching him without being dragged into his presence, and when
there, instead of the voluntary fear flowing from reverence of the divine
majesty, feeling only that forced and servile fear which divine judgment
extorts...which, while they dread, they at the same time also hate.”13 This
horrible, unbiblical picture spawned the idea of Irresistible Grace.
What about the elect? Were they not once totally depraved, yet have
been drawn to God? And what of the many scriptures (some of which we
have quoted) testifying to the many who took pleasure in seeking God?
Where does it ever say that Enoch (who walked with God) or Abraham
(the friend of God) or Moses (who spoke with God face to face) or David
(whose psalms testify to a perpetual seeking after and thirst for God) or
Daniel (for whom time with God in prayer was so precious that the threat
of being thrown into the lions’ den could not cause him to give it up), et
al., were irresistibly drawn by God, who changed their wills without
willing cooperation on their part? We are told that “Daniel purposed in
his heart” (Daniel 1:8)—not that he was regenerated and then given the
faith and desire to seek God.
The Bible contains abundant testimony to the fact that men can be
drawn to God and do indeed eagerly come and fall down and worship
Him. But even if the picture of totally depraved mankind that Calvin
paints were true, wouldn’t that be all the more reason for a God who is
love to extend His grace to all mankind in order to fulfill the purpose for
which even Calvin admits He created them? The Calvinist interpretation
of John 6 undermines hundreds of other scriptures.
Calvinists seem far too eager to embrace a few verses that say man
doesn’t seek the Lord, and too reluctant to accept the far greater number
of verses that urge man to seek God and that tell of the many who found
and love Him. Sadly, the God of Calvinism is very selective with love and
grace and takes pleasure in damning billions. In defense of God’s true
character, we insist again that such is not the God of the Bible.

1. Roland Bainton, Michel Servet, hérétique et martyr (Geneva: Droz, 1953), 152-153; letter
of February 26, 1533, now lost.
2. John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, trans. Henry Beveridge (Grand Rapids,
MI: Wm B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1998 ed.), IV: xvi, 4.
3. Ibid., xv, xvi, 3, 4, 8, 10, 17-32.
4. New Geneva Study Bible, 38.
5. T.A. McMahon, in an unrecorded interview.
6. Calvin, Institutes, IV: xvi, 4.
7. Ibid., xv, 16–17.
 8. Ibid., 20.
9. Ibid., 18.
10. Ibid.
11. Thomas R. Schreiner and Bruce A. Ware, eds., Still Sovereign: Contemporary Perspectives
on Election, Foreknowledge and Grace, (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1995), 14.
12. Calvin, Institutes, I: iii, 3.
13. Ibid., I: iv, 4.
27—Persuasion, the Gospel, and God
A THOROUGH EXAMINATION of the passage in John 6, which is
extolled as the clearest presentation of Calvinism in Scripture, fails to
uncover any support for TULIP. But if Calvinism were actually true, then
Jesus would indeed have been “taunting and mocking”1 the Jews exactly
as Luther approvingly believed He did. According to Luther and Calvin,
Christ said something like this to the Jews:
You must believe on Me as the bread of God come down from heaven to give life
unto the world. But you lack the ability to believe unto salvation, and My Father is
only going to give that ability to some of you.

By “world,” of course, I really mean “elect.” Though no one recognizes that yet,
one day it will be revealed through a system called Calvinism.

You must by faith eat My flesh and drink My blood [i.e., believe that I, as God,
became a real flesh-and-blood man to die for your sins, fulfilling the Levitical
sacrifices which the priests ate]. If you don’t believe on Me, you will perish in your
sins. Of course, you can’t believe on me unless my Father causes you to, and He
gives that grace to only a select number.

You naively think the gospel is a real offer of salvation, but in fact, it is intended
the better to damn you. You couldn’t believe on Me if you tried.

Come, you wretches, come. These are the terms. But you are all so totally
depraved that you can’t come to Me except My Father regenerates you and gives
you the faith to believe. And He has already decided in a past eternity (for reasons
hidden in His will and to His glory) that He will only do that for some but not all of
you. But you are all held accountable anyway.

Yes, He could cause all of you to believe on Me, but it is His good pleasure to
rescue only some from hell. And don’t think I’m going to die needlessly for those of
you whom My Father has predestined to eternal destruction—that would be a
waste of My blood. I will die only for the sins of the elect.
 What love is this? Some Calvinists willingly admit that the real issue is
“whether…God desires the salvation of all men.”2 Most Calvinists insist
that God has no such desire. Incredibly, MacArthur says God desires the
salvation of all but decrees the salvation of only some 3—though He can
do anything He decrees. Others say that God has two wills, one to save all
and the other to damn multitudes—and the latter somehow overcomes
the former. Zealously defending God’s sovereignty, Calvinism reproaches
His character.
If God could by His power bend anyone and everyone’s heart “to the
obedience of Christ” without any desire on their part, why doesn’t He do
it for all? And why didn’t He do this for Adam and Eve at the very
beginning, and thereafter for all their descendants? Why needlessly
create sin and foreordain man to be its slave, bringing the horror of evil
and suffering that would plague billions—and then save only some when
all could be rescued? Why would God cause Adam and Eve and all
mankind to sin, and then punish them for doing what He caused them to
do? This is not what the Bible teaches (and conscience rises up against it),
but this is Calvinism.
In support of this abhorrent doctrine, Calvin quotes Augustine:
“Wherefore, it cannot be doubted that the will of God (who hath done
whatever he pleased in heaven and in earth...) cannot be resisted by the
human will....”4 So in breaking the Ten Commandments, men are not
resisting God’s will but fulfilling it! This unbiblical belief created the
appalling dogma that everything happening on earth, including all
wickedness—even of the grossest nature—is willed by God. How could it
be otherwise, if man can do nothing contrary to God’s will? Thus
Calvinism leads to fatalism, from which come both predestination to
damnation and Irresistible Grace. It makes nonsense of the prayer “Thy
will be done in earth, as it is in heaven” (Matthew 6:10), if God is the
cause of all, as Calvinists insist.
Calvinism and Evangelism
If grace truly is irresistible, if only those elected by God to salvation can
be saved, if no one can believe the gospel until regenerated by God and
thereafter given the faith to believe, would it not be vain to attempt to
persuade anyone to embrace the gospel—or for those who hear to
voluntarily believe in Christ? Since there is nothing one can do to change
one’s eternal destiny (if among the elect, nothing can keep one out of
heaven; if not, nothing can be done to escape hell) shouldn’t one just let
the inevitable take its course? Although many Calvinists would object to
this view, inevitably, this is the practical conclusion to which that fatalistic
dogma leads. After all (they say), regeneration takes place sovereignly
without any faith on the part of the recipient—or even knowledge of its
occurrence.
Yet Calvinists, like Spurgeon, often contradict themselves out of a
sincere concern for souls that conflicts with TULIP. At times, D. James
Kennedy, founder of Evangelism Explosion, makes it sound as though
salvation is available to all and even that faith precedes regeneration:
“Place your trust in [Christ]. Ask Him to come in and be born in you
today.”5 Likewise, contrary to his professed Calvinism, Spurgeon taught
that “soul-winning is the chief business of the Christian....”6
But soul-winning is an oxymoron if Calvinism is true. The eternal
destiny of every person has already been pre-determined, so winning is
impossible. Yet Kennedy trains others to evangelize—and in the process,
further contradicts Calvinism: “For if it is true that we must be born again,
then it is also true that we may be born again.... That, my friends, is the
good news.”7 Does he seriously mean that salvation for the elect alone is
good news for everyone? Doesn’t such language mock the non-elect?
In attempting to show that evangelism has some place in Calvinism,
Boettner declared that every preacher should “pray for them [to whom
he presents the gospel] that they may each be among the elect.”8 But
since the number and identity of the elect is already determined, isn’t
such a prayer in vain? Indeed, what is the point of either praying or
preaching, if it is not the gospel but sovereign regeneration that brings
men to Christ, and the fate of each has been predestined from a past
eternity?
As for Kennedy’s “good” news, are those who have been predestined
to eternal torment expected to rejoice that their doom is sealed and
there is nothing that can be done to change it? Can he and other
evangelistically inclined Calvinists seriously think their practice matches
their belief? In disagreeing with Hoeksema, another Calvinist rightly
points out that “for them [the elect] alone the gospel is good news.”9
Many Calvinists are convinced, and logically so, “that the doctrines of
grace are contrary to soul winning.”10 Engelsma callously declares that
the call of the gospel “does not express God’s love for them [the non-
elect]” nor is it “a saving purpose. On the contrary, it is his purpose to
render them inexcusable and to harden them.”11 No wonder that by their
own admission so many Calvinists lack the Apostle Paul’s zeal for winning
the lost. Vance quotes a Sovereign Grace Baptist leader who admits that:
Our preachers are not soul winning men. We do not have soul winning
members...we almost never give any instructions on why and how to win souls.
We do not really work at soul winning in our churches.12

But this is Calvinism. Why “work at soul winning”? There is no winning

those whose eternal destiny has already been decided. Sproul insists,
“Those whom [the Father] regenerates come to Christ. Without
regeneration no one will ever come to Christ. With regeneration no one
will ever reject him.”13 Evangelism, then, has little significance. James E.
Adams declares: “Repentance and faith are the acts of regenerated men,
not of men dead in sins.”14 Contradicting his quote above, Boettner says,
“Only those who are quickened (made spiritually alive) by the Holy Spirit
ever have that will [to come to Christ].”15
We have already asked: If God is able to regenerate totally depraved
sinners, why couldn’t He cause the elect to live perfect lives after He has
regenerated them? Why doesn’t God’s Irresistible Grace that is so
powerful toward sinners create perfect obedience after they are saved?
Why is grace irresistible for lost sinners, bending their wills to His, but not
for saved sinners who so often fail to do His will? Something is wrong with
this theory!
Another Favorite Verse
John 1:13 is cited by Calvinists as proof that man can have no part
whatsoever in his salvation, not even in believing the gospel (hence the
necessity of Irresistible Grace): “Which were born, not of blood, nor of
the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.” Van Baren writes,
“It is only by the irresistible grace of God that one is born again.”16 In
spite of saying that the will plays an important part in salvation, Spurgeon
declared, “It is utterly impossible that human language could have put a
stronger negative on the vainglorious claims of the human will than this
passage does....”17
Since a baby has nothing to do with its birth, Calvinists reason that
neither can the sinner have anything to do with being regenerated. That
spiritual birth is nothing at all like physical birth, however, is a major point
of this very passage: “not of blood...flesh...will of man.” Palmer even
reasons that because an unborn baby doesn’t exist, neither does an
unsaved person: “a nonbeing does not exist and therefore can have no
desires to go to Christ.”18 Neither can it sin or reject Christ or have the
least need of being regenerated, if it “does not exist.” But how can it be
said that those who are not yet “born again” don’t even exist?!
Calvin said “infants...are saved...regenerated by the Lord,”19 even
though too young to understand the gospel.20 Garrett declares, “John the
Baptist was born again while in his mother’s womb.”21 In fact, the new
birth was not experienced by Old Testament saints. Furthermore, it
comes only by believing “the word of God...which by the gospel is
preached” (1 Peter 1:23–25)—hardly possible for infants, much less for a
fetus.
Palmer continues his unbiblical reasoning: “A baby never desires or
decides...[or] contributes one iota toward his own birth.... In a similar
fashion, the unbeliever cannot take one step toward his rebirth.”22 Even
such a firm Calvinist as Pink points out the fallacy: “Regeneration is not
the creating of a person which hitherto had no existence, but the
renewing and restoring of a person whom sin had unfitted for
communion with God....”23 Vance explains the obvious contradictions
inherent in this theory:
Is a baby responsible for any of its actions before it is born? If not, then [by this
reasoning] neither would an unsaved man be responsible for any of his [so he
could hardly be a sinner].24

The Simplicity of What John Says

John 1:11–13 simply states that flesh and blood have no relationship
to the new birth, which is spiritual and completely unrelated to physical
birth. Treating the two as analogous was the very mistake Nicodemus
made: “How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter the second
time into his mother’s womb, and be born” (John 3:4)? Christ makes a
clear distinction: “That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is
born of the Spirit is spirit” (John 3:6). These are two different births, and
any seeming similarities are only superficial and cannot become the basis
of sound conclusions.
John also explains that the new birth—which Christ tells Nicodemus is
essential for entering the kingdom of God (John 3:3,5)—does not come by
man’s will but by the will of God. Man did not conceive of the new birth
nor can he effect it by his efforts. Nor does the non-Calvinist believe that
he can. Yet we are accused of that. Bishop imagines he is refuting the
non-Calvinist when he declares that the sinner “cannot renew his own
will, change his own heart, nor regenerate his bad nature.”25 Of course
not.
How does maintaining that we must believe the gospel to be born
again suggest that we can regenerate ourselves? It doesn’t.
Of course, only God can regenerate a sinner. But verse 12 declares that
God regenerates only those who receive Christ and believe on His name.
Yet this verse is commonly overlooked or even avoided by most Calvinists,
who reason from verse 13 alone with no regard for content.
Is the new birth imposed upon man by a sovereign God’s irresistible
grace? Certainly not! It comes by faith in Christ. Moreover, dozens of
passages declare that eternal life is a gift from God to be received by
“whosoever believeth.” Even Calvin said, “Now it may be asked how men
receive the salvation offered to them by the hand of God? I reply, by
faith.”26 Yet non-Calvinists are criticized for saying the same.
Staggering Deductions
Commenting on John 1:12–13, Calvin links it quite biblically and
logically with James 1:18 (“Of his own will begat he us with the word of
truth...”). Clearly James, like John, is saying that regeneration was God’s
idea, “of his own will,” and that He effects it (“begat he us”). James
likewise confirms Peter’s declaration that we are born again by “the word
of truth,” i.e., through believing the gospel of Jesus Christ—impossible for
infants, and something that baptism cannot effect, even in adults. Calvin
himself acknowledges that faith in the “word of truth” is essential to
salvation—then contradicts himself:
We confess, indeed, that the word of the Lord is the only seed of spiritual
regeneration; but we deny the inference that, therefore, the power of God cannot
regenerate infants.... But faith, they say, cometh by hearing, the use of which
infants have not yet obtained.... But they observe not that where the apostle
 makes hearing the beginning of faith, he is...not laying down an invariable
rule....27

There is nothing about beginning of faith or “invariable rule.” The

“word of truth” by which we are born again is invariable. Moreover, if
hearing the “word of the Lord” is the beginning of faith, then an infant,
baptized or not, hasn’t even begun to possess what Calvin admits is “the
only seed of spiritual regeneration.”
Calvin retained throughout his life the unbiblical view of baptism,
which, as a devout Roman Catholic, he learned from Augustine. As a
result of that error, baptism became a substitute for the faith in Christ
through the gospel, which Christ and His apostles declare so plainly is
essential to salvation or the new birth. His own baptism as an infant was
the only “born again” experience we know of for John Calvin.
Calvin’s unbiblical ideas led to another astonishing heresy: children of
believers are automatically among the elect and thus already regenerated
from the womb. That false assurance has probably led multitudes astray!
Millions are baptized, confirmed, married, and buried by state churches
across Europe—and that is all they know of God and Christ. Listen to
Calvin:
Hence it follows, that the children of believers are not baptised, in order
that...they may then, for the first time, become children of God, but rather are
received into the Church by a formal sign, because in virtue of the promise, they
previously belonged to the body of Christ.28

Following Calvin, the Counter-Remonstrance declared that “the

children of believers, as long as they do not manifest the contrary, are to
be reckoned among God’s elect.”29 So a well-behaved baby, toddler, or
young child of believing parents is automatically a regenerated child of
God without understanding or believing the gospel! Behavior rather than
faith in Christ becomes the Calvinist’s assurance of salvation—another
deadly error, considering the undeniable capacity of many unsaved to live
seemingly good lives.
What might “manifest the contrary” mean? And whatever it means,
suppose this contrary manifestation didn’t show itself for many years?
Prior to that time, the person would have been one of the elect but after
wrong behavior would no longer be? Could one of the “elect” be lost?
And how could behavior either confirm or undo God’s election from
eternity past? Thus we see again why the fifth point is called
“Perseverance of the Saints,” and not “The Keeping Power of God,”— and
why this last of Calvinism’s five points, contrary to what one expects,
breeds uncertainty instead of eternal security, a fact that will become
even clearer in chapter 30.
If a child of one of the “elect” is by that fact alone also among the
elect, then his or her children would also be among the elect—and
grandchildren, great-grandchildren, great-great grandchildren, and so
forth, endlessly. Is not this the logical conclusion to which Calvin’s
teaching inevitably leads? Why don’t leading Calvinists today, instead of
highly praising Calvin’s Institutes, warn of his errors?
Although the belief that children of the elect are themselves elect
might be compared to the belief that young children who die prior to
reaching an understanding of the gospel are covered by the blood of
Christ and taken to heaven, there is a grave difference between the two
concepts. The former ultimately involves those who, rather than having
been taken to heaven in infancy, continue to live into adulthood. Why
should the Calvinist youth, when he comes of age, be challenged to
believe the gospel, inasmuch as both by birth and infant baptism he has
been declared to be one of the elect?
Later, confirmation merely reinforces confidence in what infant
baptism—or being born into a Calvinist family—already allegedly
accomplished. Indeed, what need is there to preach the gospel to anyone,
since the elect are regenerated without it and the non-elect cannot
believe it? To defend his dogmas, Calvin managed to rationalize an
interpretation of John 1:13 and James 1:18 that actually contradicts both:
Hence it follows, first, that faith...is the fruit of spiritual regeneration; for the
Evangelist affirms that no man can believe, unless he be begotten of God; and
therefore faith is a heavenly gift. It follows, secondly, that faith is not bare or cold
knowledge, since no man can believe who has not been renewed [reborn] by the
Spirit of God.30

On the contrary, verse 12 clearly states that those who receive Christ
and believe on His name are as a result given authority to become the
sons of God. Faith in Christ clearly precedes and is essential for the new
birth. Far from teaching that “no man can believe, unless he be begotten
of God,” both James and John teach the opposite: it is through believing
“the word of truth” that one is regenerated. It couldn’t be said more
clearly that receiving Christ and believing on His name are required by
God for Him to regenerate the sinner.
Calvin contradicted himself on this subject as on others: “It is said that
believers, in embracing Christ, are ‘born, not of blood, nor of the will of
the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God’ (John 1:13)....”31 Here he
clearly admits the biblical order: one embraces (i.e., believes in) Christ
and, as a result of this faith, is born of God, i.e., regenerated. In this same
section of his Institutes, however, he again refers to regeneration as
“preceding faith.”
Directly Contradicting Scripture
How can Calvinists claim that these verses teach that one must be
born again before one can believe on and receive Christ? They teach the
opposite! From this unbiblical twisting of Scripture flows the doctrine of
Irresistible Grace: God must irresistibly regenerate the elect before they
can even believe on Christ.
Calvinists make some surprising deductions from John 1:13, such as
that “man does not have a free will when it comes to the matter of
salvation.”32 Pink insists, “In and of himself the natural man has power to
reject Christ; but...not the power to receive Christ.”33 Palmer asserts,
“Only when the Holy Spirit regenerates man and makes him alive
spiritually can man have faith in Christ and be saved.”34 Custance
declares, “What could possibly be a plainer statement than this of the fact
that salvation is conferred upon a select number who are conceived by
the Holy Spirit and born again by the will of God alone?”35 Yet each of
these statements contradicts the passage, which clearly says that those
who have “received him...[and] believe on his name...become the sons of
God [being]...born...of God” (1:12–13).
Vance provides astounding quotes from Calvinists contradicting John
1:11-13:

• A person is regenerated before he believes.36

• A man is not saved because he believes in Christ; he believes in

Christ because he is saved.37

• A man is not regenerated because he has first believed in

Christ, but he believes in Christ because he has been
regenerated.38

• We do not believe in order to be born again; we are born again

in order that we may believe.39

• Being quickened and renewed by the Holy Spirit, [man] is

thereby enabled...to embrace the grace offered and conveyed
in it.40
Read John 1:11–13 and James 1:18. Meditate upon these passages and
pray about them. Such statements as the above, which are integral parts
of Calvinism, contradict God’s Word. They are not derived from but are
imposed upon Scripture. Bob Thompson challenges any Calvinist “to point
to one instance in the Bible where God implanted His Holy Spirit in...an
individual before he or she took God at His Word and was saved....”41
It is no coincidence that most Calvinists avoid John 1:12. No reference
is made to it in the 600 pages of the Selected Writings of John Knox,42 and
Pink avoids it in The Sovereignty of God. Piper makes two oblique
references to it in The Justification of God, but without substantive
comment.43 Not one of the thirteen authors in Still Sovereign:
Contemporary Perspectives on Election, Foreknowledge and Grace
confronts it. To his credit, White gives it four and one-half pages44
because Norm Geisler mentions it in his book, Chosen But Free (Bethany
House, 1999), and White’s book was written specifically as a rebuttal to
Geisler.
White attempts a response to Geisler’s statement that “verse 12 [John
1:12] makes it plain that the means by which this new birth is obtained is
by [sic] ‘all who receive him [Christ]’.”45 Geisler means that verse 12 gives
the qualification (“as many as received him...who believe on his name”)
for receiving the new birth mentioned in verse 13, and that the new birth
is totally “of God.” This is what verse 12 clearly says.
Confusing Man’s Faith with God’s Work
The problem in White’s response is simple and twofold: 1) He
introduces (without any biblical support) the favorite argument about
faith being impossible without the new birth. That assertion is not only
contrary to this passage but also to the numerous passages calling upon
the unregenerate to believe and offering salvation through faith; and 2)
He fails to distinguish between man’s believing and God’s regenerating.
Neither Geisler nor anyone else critical of the Calvinist interpretation of
John 1:13 imagines that man’s faith causes regeneration. Thus the
Calvinist is arguing against something his critics don’t even espouse.
 Jesus tells Nicodemus that he must be born of the Spirit of God. He
makes it equally clear that man must believe in order to be saved: “that
whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life....
He that believeth...is not condemned: but he that believeth not is
condemned already...” (John 3:16, 18). And as we’ve seen, salvation and
the new birth are one and the same. Yet White proceeds to demolish the
same old straw man:
Nothing is said in the text that the new birth is “received” by an “act of free will.”
In fact, the exact opposite is stated clearly, “the ones born not of the will of
man....” It is an amazing example of how preconceived notions can be read into a
text that CBF [Geisler’s Chosen But Free] can say the text makes the new birth
dependent upon an act of the “free will” when the text says the opposite.

[Furthermore], if a person can have saving faith without the new birth, then what
does the new birth accomplish? Evidently one does not need the new birth to obey
God’s commands or have saving faith.46

White confuses what man must do (believe) with what God does
(regenerate). That the new birth is “not of the will of man, but of God”
does not deny that man must believe for God to effect this work in him.
Man’s faith in Christ no more causes the new birth than faith causes
forgiveness of sins and reconciliation to God. Forgiveness of sins, the new
birth into God’s family, and the many other blessings we have in Christ
are all the work of God—but they are only bestowed on those who
believe. Believing did not create these blessings; it merely fulfilled God’s
condition for receiving them. Yes, regeneration is not by man’s fleshly will
but is all of God; however, God regenerates only those who have received
and believed on Christ, as the passage clearly states.
Unquestionably, not only James 1:18 (“begat he us with the word of
truth”) but numerous other passages teach that believing “the word of
truth” is essential for and must precede the new birth. The gospel is the
specific “word of truth” that must be believed for the new birth to occur:
“Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved” (Acts 16:31).
Peter puts it succinctly: “Being born again...by the word of God…which by
the gospel is preached unto you” (1 Peter 1:23, 25). Believing the gospel is
the means God uses to effect the new birth—thus faith cannot be
imparted by God after regeneration, as Calvinism insists.
In response to Nicodemus’s question about how a man can be born
again into God’s kingdom, Christ explains that He is going to be “lifted up”
for sin upon the cross like the brazen serpent in the wilderness, “that
whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life”
(John 3:15–16). Salvation is not of works, but by faith: “But to him that
worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is
counted for righteousness” (Romans 4:5). As Paul repeatedly says, the
sinner is “justified by faith” (Romans 5:1).
The sinner must hear and believe the gospel before regeneration, not
after it. That is why we must preach the gospel and seek, like Paul, to
persuade men. Calvin reversed the biblical order, as do his followers
today, declaring that no one can believe the gospel until he has first been
regenerated. As Spurgeon said, however, one who has been regenerated
has no need of the gospel, being saved already.
Is Faith, or Salvation, the Gift of God?
More than one of the critical letters I received charged me with
ignorance on this count: “You don’t seem to understand that faith itself is
a God-given gift.” That faith is a gift is a major foundational principal of
Calvinism. The favorite passage offered as proof is Ephesians 2:8–10.
Mathison says, “Saving faith is a gift of God, a result of the regenerating
work of the Holy Spirit.”47 Storms claims, “Numerous texts assert that
such [saving] faith is God’s own gracious gift (see especially Ephesians
2:8–9...).”48 Clark declares:
A dead man cannot...exercise faith in Jesus Christ. Faith is an activity of spiritual
life, and without the life there can be no activity. Furthermore, faith...does not
come by any independent decision. The Scripture is explicit, plain, and
 unmistakable: “For by grace are ye saved through faith, and that not of yourselves,
it is the gift of God” (Ephesians 2:8). Look at the words again, “It is the gift of God.”
If God does not give a man faith, no amount of will power and decision can
manufacture it for him.49

On the contrary, the subject of the preceding seven verses is salvation,

not faith. Verse 8 then declares concerning salvation, “by grace are ye
saved...it [obviously salvation] is the gift of God.” It is not saving faith, but
being saved that is God’s gift. We are repeatedly told that eternal life is
“the gift of God” (Romans 6:23; see also John 4:10; Romans 5:18;
Hebrews 6:4, etc.). No less definitive, as Calvin admitted and then tried to
deny, is the statement that “faith comes by hearing and hearing by the
Word of God.” There is no biblical basis for suggesting that God gives
saving faith to a select group and withholds it from others.
Furthermore, the construction of the Greek in Ephesians 2:8–10 makes
it impossible for faith to be the gift. Such is the verdict of many Greek
authorities, including Alford,50 F. F. Bruce, A. T. Robertson,51 W. E. Vine,
Scofield, and others.52 Vance notes that “A witness to the truth of
Scripture against the Calvinist ‘faith-gift’ interpretation can be found in
the Greek grammarians.” He lists W. Robertson Nicoll,53 Kenneth S.
Wuest,54 Marvin R. Vincent,55 and others.56
Among the reasons the experts cite is the fact that the word faith is a
feminine noun, while the demonstrative pronoun that (“and that not of
yourselves, it is the gift”) is neuter and thus could not refer to faith. Nor
will the grammar, as W. G. MacDonald says, “permit ‘faith’ to be the
antecedent of ‘it.’”57 Of course, “it is” is not in the Greek but was added
for clarity by the KJV translators and thus is italicized. Nor does it require
a knowledge of Greek, but simply paying attention to the entire context
of Ephesians 2:8–10, to realize that salvation, not faith, is “the gift of
God”—as all of Scripture testifies.
A number of other Greek authorities could be cited to that effect.
Though a Calvinist, F. F. Bruce explains, “The fact that the demonstrative
pronoun ‘that’ is neuter in Greek (touto), whereas ‘faith’ is a feminine
noun (pistis), combines with other considerations to suggest that it is the
whole concept of salvation by grace through faith that is described as the
gift of God. This, incidentally, was Calvin’s interpretation.”58 Calvin
himself acknowledged, “But they commonly misinterpret this text, and
restrict the word ‘gift’ to faith alone. But Paul...does not mean that faith is
the gift of God, but that salvation is given to us by God....”59 Thus White
and other zealous Calvinists who today insist that faith is the gift are
contradicting not only the Greek construction but John Calvin himself.
We Must Believe—God Doesn’t Believe for Us
Furthermore, even if saving faith were the gift (which it could not be),
there is nothing in Ephesians 2 (or anywhere else) to indicate that it is
irresistibly implanted by God only after He has sovereignly regenerated
the totally depraved sinner. Indeed, that very passage says we are “saved,
through faith”; i.e., faith is the means of our salvation/regeneration—not
something that follows it.
That saving faith is not only by God’s enabling but is something man is
responsible for is made clear from many scriptures. When we are told,
“Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ” (Acts 16:31) or “have faith in God”
(Mark 11:22) there is no suggestion that God will regenerate the
unregenerate and then give him that faith; rather, believing is something
man is expected to do. When Jesus said, “O ye of little faith” (Matthew
6:30; 8:26; 16:8; Luke 12:28), He was not putting the blame upon His
Father for giving the disciples so little faith, but upon them for not
believing. When He said, “I have not seen so great faith...in Israel”
(Matthew 8:10; Luke 7:9) he was crediting the centurion with that faith as
his own—not as a gift from God.
For Peter to speak of “the trial of your faith” (1 Peter 1:7) would be
meaningless if faith were a gift of God. The purpose of the gospel is to
bring men into “the faith” (Jude 3), making it their own. Believing the
gospel and God’s Word is something we must do—God doesn’t believe
for us.
The epistles use the phrase “your faith” 22 times. Paul writes, “your
faith is spoken of throughout the whole world” (Romans 1:8); “when your
faith is increased” (2 Corinthians 10:15); “I heard of your faith in the Lord
Jesus” (Ephesians 1:15); “we heard of your faith in Christ Jesus”
(Colossians 1:4), and so forth. In the story of the man “sick of the palsy”
brought to Jesus by friends, Jesus, “seeing their faith,” forgave him his
sins and healed him (Matthew 9:2; Mark 2:5; Luke 5:20). There is no
indication that these men had been regenerated and faith given to them
as a gift from God. We are told that “the just shall live by his faith”
(Habakkuk 2:4). Of the person who “worketh not, but believeth” we are
told “his faith is counted for righteousness” (Romans 4:5).
That believing God through His Word is man’s responsibility is either
taught directly or clearly implied in numerous passages from Genesis to
Revelation. Calvinists reject the entire message of the Bible when they
attempt to interpret a verse here or there to read that faith is God’s
responsibility to be given as a gift to man.
The Biblical Order: Faith Brings Salvation
In fact, John 1:12 is only one of many verses that make it clear that
God effects the new birth/regeneration only in those who believe on
Christ. Beside the verses already quoted proving that salvation is by faith
in Christ, there are many others.
For example, Galatians 3:14 declares that we “receive the promise of
the Spirit through faith”; and verse 26 says, “ye are all the children of God
by faith in Christ Jesus.” Likewise, Paul tells the Ephesian believers, “In
whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of
your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with
that holy Spirit of promise, which is the earnest of our inheritance...”
(Ephesians 1:13–14). It could not be stated more clearly that a permanent
relationship with the Holy Spirit begins only after believing the gospel. No
wonder White and other Calvinists avoid this scripture as well.
Consider Christ’s own words, “that every one which seeth the Son, and
believeth on him, may have everlasting life” (John 6:40). It is evident that
seeing the Son and believing on Him precede receiving eternal life. Calvin
turned it around to say that everyone who is elected and sovereignly
given everlasting life by Irresistible Grace will then see the Son and
believe on Him. Numerous verses disprove Calvin’s reversal of the biblical
order.
Jesus said, “He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent
me, hath everlasting life” (John 5:24). Again, hearing and believing
precede receiving eternal life, which comes through the new birth. Surely
no one could be regenerated by the Holy Spirit without receiving
simultaneously the gift of eternal life—so how could regeneration come
before faith? Galatians 3:22 presents the same truth: “But the scripture
hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ
might be given to them that believe.” The promised new birth and eternal
life are given “by faith...to them that believe.” Clearly, faith precedes the
new birth.
Indisputably, salvation comes by faith. But if regeneration sovereignly
comes without and before faith, then the elect, as we have already
shown, are regenerated without being saved. To maintain that unbiblical
theory, the Calvinist argues that salvation and regeneration are two
distinct events, regeneration coming first by God’s sovereign act without
any faith, then the gift of faith is given so that the person can believe the
gospel unto salvation. We have already seen that such an idea was
rejected by Spurgeon: “a man who is regenerated...is saved already...it
is...ridiculous...to preach Christ to him.”60
But that raises another problem: How could anyone be sovereignly
regenerated by God without being born again of the Spirit? Surely
regeneration must be synonymous with the new birth. But if Calvinism is
true, there must be two new births—one that precedes faith and another
that comes by believing the gospel unto the new birth (and salvation) that
Jesus explained to Nicodemus.
To Whom Is Salvation Offered?
We have already noted that the Old Testament lays the foundation for
the New. Specifically, God’s provisions for Israel looked forward to Christ
and the salvation He would procure for the world of sinners. For example:
“For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us” (1 Corinthians 5:7).
Unquestionably, the provision of the Passover was for every person in
Israel without exception: “they shall take to them every man a lamb...the
whole assembly of the congregation of Israel shall kill it in the
evening...and the children of Israel...did as the Lord had commanded
Moses...” (Exodus 12:3, 6, 28).
The manna, also, was for every Israelite. And that, too, was a picture
of Christ, “the true bread from heaven...that bread of life” (John 6:32, 48,
etc.). Of the manna, we are told: “Gather of it every man...take ye every
man...and they gathered every man according to his eating” (Exodus
16:16-18). Every Israelite gathered and ate and for 40 years lived on the
manna God provided—but most of them were ultimately lost. So the fact
that God provided for all did not guarantee salvation to all. Individual
faith was required. God did not gather the manna, much less eat it for
each of these. Again, we see human responsibility, which pictures
individual faith.
Every Israelite was “baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea;
and did all eat the same spiritual meat [manna]; and did all drink the
same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed
them: and that Rock was Christ.” Yet “many of them...were overthrown in
the wilderness” (1 Corinthians 10:2-5). Baptized and ate and drank of
Christ—yet lost? There is no escaping the fact that God’s salvation was
graciously provided for every Israelite. Israel as a whole is called, “Israel
mine elect” (Isaiah 45:4)—yet most of them perished eternally.
The Calvinist has only two choices. He must either accept the
possibility of true believers falling away from the faith, or he must admit
that salvation is offered to all and that it is effective only for those who
believe. Nowhere in any of these Old Testament types is there even a hint
of a select group among the Israelites who were elected to salvation,
sovereignly regenerated, and then given faith to believe. No wonder
Calvinist apologists give these Old Testament types of Christ a wide berth.
The Sabbath pictured the eternal “rest for the people of God”
(Hebrews 4:9), found in Christ alone. No Israelite was exempt from any of
the Ten Commandments, which included, “Remember the Sabbath day,
to keep it holy” (Exodus 20:8), “abide ye every man in his place” (16:29).
Nor does the rejection of Christ and the salvation in Him dilute God’s
sovereignty or His sacrifice for all upon the Cross, any more than does
mankind’s universal refusal to keep the Ten Commandments.
The Serpent and Christ
No picture of the Cross in the Old Testament life of Israel is more
insightful than the incident of the “fiery serpents” that bit the people in
judgment for their sin, and the provision God made to heal all who would
believe and look: “And the LORD said unto Moses, Make thee a fiery
serpent [of brass], and set it upon a pole: and it shall come to pass, that
every one that is bitten, when he looketh upon it, shall live. And Moses
made a serpent of brass, and put it upon a pole, and it came to pass, that
if a serpent had bitten any man, when he beheld the serpent of brass, he
lived” (Numbers 21:8-9).
The serpents were a picture of the deadly bite of sin on the entire
human race without exception. Just as healing was for “every
one...bitten” by a fiery serpent, we can only conclude that healing is for
everyone bitten by the “serpent” of sin. And as none is exempt from sin,
so none has been left without the remedy God has provided in Christ.
Christ himself pointed to this incident as a picture of His being lifted up
on the Cross. The lifting up of the brazen likeness of the serpent foretold
one of the most amazing aspects of the Cross—and one most difficult to
comprehend. Christ would become the very thing that had “bitten” the
human race: “For he hath made him to be sin for us, [He] who knew no
sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him” (2
Corinthians 5:21).
Calvinists avoid all of these examples that pointed forward to Christ,
because they were so clearly for all of Israel, showing that the sacrifice of
Christ is for all the world. As surely as every provision was for each and
every Israelite, so surely do we know that many if not most Israelites
were eternally lost—in spite of God’s provision for them in so many ways.
One will search books by Calvinists long and hard to find any reference
to these passages. White avoids them in his book The Potter’s Freedom.
And in my debate with him in book form, Debating Calvinism: Five Points,
Two Views, he refused to respond to any of these powerful pictures that I
pointed out from the Old Testament—even daring to declare that they
were “irrelevant.” And that included the brazen serpent!61
John says of Jesus, “In him was life; and the life was the light of
men...the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the
world” (John 1:4, 9). Once again, the words “every man” tell us clearly
that the unregenerated can be given the light of the gospel. “I am the
light of the world:” said Jesus. “He that followeth me shall not walk in
darkness, but shall have the light of life” (John 8:12). White has no
comment on these verses in his book, nor upon other similar passages
such as John 16:8, where Jesus said that when the Holy Spirit came, He
would “reprove the world of sin, righteousness and judgment.” Many
other verses could be cited in the same vein, which Calvinists also avoid.

1. Martin Luther, The Bondage of the Will, J. I. Packer and O. R. Johnston, translator (Grand
Rapids, MI: Fleming H. Revell, 1999), 153.
2. John Murray and Ned B. Stonehouse, The Free Offer of the Gospel (n. p., n. d.), 3.
3. John MacArthur, Author and General Editor, The MacArthur Study Bible (Nashville, TN:
Word Publishing, 1997), 1862.
4. John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, trans. Henry Beveridge (Grand Rapids,
MI: Wm B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1998 ed.), III: xxiii, 14.
5. D. James Kennedy, Why I Believe (Dallas, TX: Word Publishing, 1980), 140.
6. Charles Haddon Spurgeon, The Soul Winner (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm B. Eerdmans
Publishing Co., 1963), 15.
7. Kennedy, Believe, 138.
8. Loraine Boettner, The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian
and Reformed Publishing Co., 1932), 285.
9. James Daane, The Freedom of God (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.,
1973), 24.
10. Joseph M. Wilson, “Soul Winning,” The Baptist Examiner, February 15, 1992, 1.
11. David J. Engelsma, Hyper-Calvinism and the Call of the Gospel (Grandville, MI: Reformed
Free Publishing Association, 1980), 17–18.
12. Wilson, “Soul,” 1–2; cited in Laurence M. Vance, The Other Side of Calvinism (Pensacola,
FL: Vance Publications, rev. ed. 1999), 542.
13. R. C. Sproul, Chosen by God (Carol Stream, IL: Tyndale House Publishers, Inc., 1986),
125.
14. James E. Adams, Decisional Regeneration (McDonough, GA: Free Grace Publications,
1972), 12.
15. Boettner, Reformed, 11.
16. Gise J. Van Baren, “Irresistible Grace,” in Herman Hanko, Homer C. Hoeksema, and Gise
J. Van Baren, The Five Points of Calvinism (Grandville, MI: Reformed Free Publishing
Association, 1976), 77.
17. Charles Haddon Spurgeon, “God’s Will and Man’s Will,” No. 442 (Newington:
Metropolitan Tabernacle; sermon delivered Sunday morning, March 30, 1862).
18. Edwin H. Palmer, the five points of calvinism (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, enlarged
ed., 20th prtg., 1999), 17.
19. Calvin, Institutes, IV: xvi, 16–19.
20. Ibid.
21. Eddie K. Garrett, “The Purpose of the Gospel” (The Hardshell Baptist, December 1990, 4);
cited in Vance, Other Side, 525.
22. Palmer, five points, 17.
23. Arthur W. Pink, The Doctrine of Salvation (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1975),
26–27.
24. Vance, Other Side, 522.
25. George S. Bishop, The Doctrines of Grace (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1977),
146.
26. John Calvin, Calvin’s New Testament Commentaries (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm B. Eerdmans
Publishing Co., 1994), 11:144.
27. Calvin, Institutes, IV: xvi, 18.
28. Calvin, Institutes, IV: xvi, 18–21; IV: xv, 22.
29. Vance, Other Side, 151–52.
30. John Calvin, Commentary on the Gospel According to John (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker
Book House, 1984), 43; cited in James R. White, The Potter’s Freedom (Amityville, NY:
Calvary Press Publishing, 2000), 183.
31. Calvin, Institutes, II: ii,19.
32. Manford E. Kober, Divine Election or Human Effort? (n. p., n. d.), 31; cited in Vance,
Other Side, 216.
33. Arthur W. Pink, The Sovereignty of God (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 2nd prtg.
1986 ed.), 128.
34. Palmer, five points, 27.
35. Arthur C. Custance, The Sovereignty of Grace (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and
Reformed Publishing Co., 1979), 188.
36. W. E. Best, Simple Faith (A Misnomer) (Houston, TX: W. E. Best Book Missionary Trust,
1993), 34.
37. Boettner, Reformed, 101.
38. Arthur W. Pink, The Holy Spirit (Grand Rapids,MI: Baker Book House, 1978), 55.
39. Grover E. Gunn, The Doctrines of Grace (Memphis, TN: Footstool Publications, 1987), 8.
40. Westminster Confession of Faith (London: n. p., 1643), Chapter X.
41. Bob Thompson, “The 5 Points of Calvin’s Doctrine of Predestination” (self-published
monograph, 4056 Skyline Rd., Carlsbad CA 92008, n. d.), 6.
42. John Knox, Selected Writings of John Knox (Dallas, TX: Presbyterian Heritage
Publications, 1995).
43. John Piper, The Justification of God: An Exegetical and Theological Study of Romans 9:1–
23 (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2000), 31, note 154.
44. James R. White, The Potter’s Freedom: A Defense of the Reformation and a Rebuttal of
 Norman Geisler’s Chosen But Free (Amityville, NY: Calvary Press Publishing, 2000), 182–
86.
45. Cited in White, Potter’s, without footnote reference.
46. Ibid., 185.
47. Keith A. Mathison, Dispensationalism: Rightly Dividing the People of God? (Phillipsburg,
NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1995), 99.
48. C. Samuel Storms, “Prayer and Evangelism under God’s Sovereignty;” in Thomas R.
Schreiner and Bruce A. Ware, eds., The Grace of God, The Bondage of the Will (Grand
Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1995), 221.
49. Gordon H. Clark, Predestination (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing
Co., 1987), 102; cited in Vance, Other Side, 515–16.
50. Henry Alford, The New Testament for English Readers (Grand Rapids,MI: Baker Book
House, 1983), 3:216.
51. Archibald Thomas Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament (New York: Harper and
Bros., 1930), 4:525.
52. Cited in Samuel Fisk, Divine Sovereignty and Human Freedom (Neptune, NJ: Loizeaux
Brothers, 1973), 32–36.
53. W. Robertson Nicoll, ed., The Expositor’s Greek Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm B.
Eerdmans Publishing Co., n. d.), 3:289.
54. Kenneth S. Wuest, Ephesians and Colossians in the Greek New Testament (Grand Rapids,
MI: Wm B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1953), 69.
55. Marvin R. Vincent, Word Studies in the New Testament (New York: Charles Scribner’s
Sons, 1924), 3:376.
56. Vance, Other Side, 517.
57. MacDonald, W. G., Grace Unlimited, ed. Clark H. Pinnock (Bloomington, MD: Bethany
Fellowship, Inc., 1976), 87; quoted in Samuel Fisk, Calvinistic Paths Retraced (Raleigh,
NC: Biblical Evangelism Press, 1985), 22.
58. F. F. Bruce, The Epistles to the Colossians, to Philemon, and to the Ephesians (Grand
Rapids, MI: Wm B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1984), 220–21.
59. John Calvin, Calvin’s New Testament Commentaries (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm B. Eerdmans
Publishing Co., 1994), 11:145.
60. C. H. Spurgeon, “The Warrant of Faith” (Pasadena, TX: Pilgrim Publications, 1978), 3.
[one-sermon booklet from 63-volume set].
61. Dave Hunt & James White, Debating Calvinism: five points, two views (Sisters, Oregon:
Multnomah Publishers, 2004), 277.
28—When Is “Love” Not Love?
IN A RADIO DISCUSSION with James White, I referred to Christ’s
weeping over Jerusalem. I pointed to His expression of desire (“how often
would I”) and His lament over Jerusalem’s hard-hearted response (“ye
would not”) as proof of His sincere offer of grace, and of man’s right and
ability to receive or reject salvation:
O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are
sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a
hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not! (Matthew 23:37)

White countered that Christ was not weeping over Jerusalem and that
the ones He wanted to gather were Jerusalem’s children, not the religious
leaders who rejected Him. “Ye would not,” he insisted, expressed the
attitude of the rabbis, not of Jerusalem’s “children” whom He wanted to
gather under His care.
This argument, however, is of no help to White or other Calvinists who
use it. Very few if any of Jerusalem’s “children,” any more than her
leaders, ever believed on Christ. Therefore, even if Christ only meant the
children, He was expressing a desire for the salvation of many who were
never saved.
Did Christ Really Weep Over Jerusalem?
Here is one more example of the way in which Calvinists must twist
Scripture in defending their strange doctrine. In fact, the expression,
“children of Jerusalem” or “children of Israel,” etc., is used throughout
Scripture to indicate “the people” of a city or country or race—never its
non-adults. When only the young children are meant, the context always
makes that fact clear, as “the wives also and the children rejoiced...”
(Nehemiah 12:43).
 The expression, “children of Israel” is found 644 times, “children of
Ammon” 89 times, “children of Benjamin” 36 times, “children of God” 10
times, and not once in those 779 instances is the reference to non-adults!
The specific phrase, “children of Jerusalem,” is used in Joel 3:6 for the
“inhabitants of Jerusalem”—exactly as Christ meant in His lament. Among
many similar references to “children” and “Jerusalem” (none of which
means its non-adults exclusively) we find:
And in Jerusalem dwelt of the children of Judah, and of the children of Benjamin,
and of the children of Ephraim, and Manasseh... (1 Chronicles 9:3); the children of
Judah and Jerusalem (2 Chronicles 28:10); And the children of Israel that were
present at Jerusalem (2 Chronicles 30:21); all the children of the captivity, that
they should gather themselves together unto Jerusalem (Ezra 10:7); children of the
province...that…came again to Jerusalem (Nehemiah 7:6); Jerusalem...thy children
have forsaken me...and assembled themselves by troops in the harlots’ houses.…
Every one neighed after his neighbour’s wife.… Saith the LORD: and shall not my
soul be avenged on such a nation as this? (Jeremiah 5:1-9); etc.

There are numerous other similar references, all of which clearly refer
to the inhabitants of Jerusalem or some other city or country and none of
which refers exclusively to non-adults. In His great love, Christ is clearly
pleading with Israel—as He has through His prophets for centuries, and as
He still pleads with the world for which He died.
Disagreement in the Ranks
Not only is White’s argument (which is used by many Calvinists) both
irrational and unbiblical, but even some Calvinist leaders disagree with it.
John MacArthur, Jr., recognizes that Christ is expressing the same desire
for the salvation of all the inhabitants of Jerusalem that He has expressed
for centuries as the God of Israel through His prophets.1 He declares that
“Jesus weeps over the city of Jerusalem...we cannot escape the
conclusion that God’s benevolent, merciful love is unlimited in extent....
Luke 19:41-44 gives an even more detailed picture of Christ’s sorrow over
the city....”2 And MacArthur even suggests that “the city of Jerusalem
[represents] the Israelite Nation.”3
 Luther also declared, “In Christ, God comes seeking the salvation of all
men; He offers Himself to all; He weeps over Jerusalem because
Jerusalem rejects Him.... Here God incarnate says: ‘I would, and thou
wouldest not.’ God incarnate...was sent for this purpose, to will, say, do,
suffer and offer to all men, all that is necessary for salvation albeit he
offends many who, being abandoned or hardened by God’s secret will of
Majesty...do not receive him....”4
In a further contradiction of his affirmation at other times of Limited
Atonement, Spurgeon also applied Christ’s words both to all of Jerusalem
and to all sinners:
In Christ’s name I have wept over you as the Saviour did, and used his words on his
behalf, “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, how often would I have gathered thy children
together as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not....”
Oh! God does plead with...everyone of you, “Repent, and be converted for the
remission of your sins....” And with divine love he woos you...crying, “Come unto
me....”

“No,” says one strong-doctrine man, “God never invites all men to himself....”
Stop, sir.... Did you ever read... “My oxen and my fatlings are killed, and all things
are ready; come unto the marriage. And they that were bidden would not come....”
Now if the invitation is...made [only] to the man who will accept it, how can that
parable be true? The fact is...the invitation is free.... “Whosoever will, let him
come....”

Now...some of you [may] say that I was...Arminian at the end. I care not. I beg of
you to...turn unto the Lord with all your hearts.5

Spurgeon makes an excellent point. Christ likens the kingdom of God

to a supper to which men are invited (Luke 14:15-24). In the parable,
there is no question that a bona fide invitation was extended, nor that
many if not most of those sincerely invited refused and even scorned the
invitation and suffered the Lord’s wrath: “For I say unto you, That none of
those men which were bidden shall taste of my supper” (v. 24).
The problem for the Calvinist is to explain how God can sincerely invite
into His kingdom those for whom Christ did not die, whom He has not
elected to salvation, whom He has from a past eternity predestined to
eternal torment and who can’t accept because He withholds from them
the grace they need—then punish them for not responding to His
“invitation.” How, indeed! And why does He send his servants to
“compel” those “in highways and hedges...to come in, that my house may
be filled” (v. 23), if regeneration is a sovereign act of God without human
response? And if faith is a gift and grace is irresistible, how could the elect
refuse the earnest invitation? Spurgeon leaves these questions
unanswered, knowing he will be accused of being “Arminian at the end.”
Nor have we found any Calvinist who attempts to answer Spurgeon.
The only reasonable and biblical response is to abandon Calvinism, which
Spurgeon would not do, although he continued to contradict it in his
preaching. And for pointing out these contradictions, I am criticized for
allegedly misquoting and misrepresenting Spurgeon.
Contradictions, Contradictions....
Calvinists speak out of both sides of their mouths in order to avoid the
valid charge that Calvinism denies God’s love for all mankind. Those who
try to separate themselves from what they call “extreme Calvinism,” or
“hyper-Calvinism,” go to great lengths to make it appear that Calvinism’s
God truly loves all. As already noted, John MacArthur spends an entire
book in that vain attempt.6 There is no escaping the fact that his book,
which purports to show that God loves all, basically says the opposite.
MacArthur makes it clear that though God supposedly loves everyone,
He never intended to save everyone, claiming that had He done so, all
would have been saved. No place is allowed for anyone to accept or to
reject a genuine offer of the gospel by his own choice. He thus falls into
inescapable contradictions. For example, MacArthur condemns those
who “deny that God loves everyone,”7 but what he calls God’s “love” for
the non-elect is not love at all! He confesses that “to abandon logic is to
become irrational, and true Christianity is not irrational.”8 Yet he argues
irrationally that loving “the elect in a special way reserved only for
them...does not make His love for the rest of humanity any less real.”9
He has just declared that “God chose...unto salvation...certain
individuals and passed over others, and He made that choice in eternity
past...without regard to anything He foresaw in the elect; simply
according to the good pleasure of his will and to the praise of the glory of
his grace...(Ephesians 1:5-6).” In his next breath, however, he admits, “It
seems reasonable to assume that if God loved everyone, He would have
chosen everyone unto salvation.... It is folly to think that God loves all
alike, or that He is compelled by some rule of fairness to love everyone
equally.”10
On the contrary, “degrees of love” cannot explain the difference
between predestining a select group to heaven and the rest to hell,
though all could have been received into heaven! It is not love at all to
predestine to hell any who could have been saved! So MacArthur
attempts a further “explanation:”
God’s love for the reprobate is not a love of value; it is the love of pity...a love of
compassion...of sorrow...of pathos...the same deep sense of compassion and pity
we have when we see a scab-ridden derelict lying in the gutter...a genuine, well-
meant, compassionate, sympathetic love....11

Here we see the depths of complete irrationality into which the

Calvinist falls in trying to balance on the tight rope of “God loves all but
not in the same way”!
Kinds or Aspects of Love?
One is aghast at such astonishing statements. God has genuine
“compassionate, sympathetic love” for those whom He has predestined
to eternal torment, whom He could save but never intended to, and for
whom Christ did not die? Words seem to have a different meaning for the
Calvinist than for the ordinary person who understands love and
sympathy by the God-given conscience, of which the Calvinist seems
bereft!
Genuine compassion for a derelict would not just leave him there but
would do all that could be done to rescue him. Otherwise it is not the
compassion of the good Samaritan who cared for the derelict (Luke
10:33-35) but the hypocrisy of the priest and Levite who “passed by on
the other side” (Luke 10:31-32) and left the robbed and wounded victim
to die—and worse, predestined that condition. The “love” MacArthur
attributes to God is like that of those condemned by James who say to
one naked and starving, “Depart in peace, be ye warmed and filled,” but
give him nothing (James 2:15-16).
God through the Apostle James condemns such double-speak, yet God
himself is guilty of such hypocrisy? MacArthur attempts to escape the
conscience by suggesting that “in some sense God loves His enemies,”12
and by hiding behind the idea of “two aspects of God’s love—His
universal love for all humanity and His particular love for the elect [which]
must not be confounded.”13 But an “aspect” of love, whatever that might
mean, must still be love—and it is not love of any kind, nor is it any aspect
thereof, to predestine to damnation any who could just as well have been
saved!
Luther tries to defend the same contradiction. Having declared that
Christ came to “offer to all men all that is necessary for salvation,” he
adds that “the will of Majesty purposely leaves and reprobates some to
perish. Nor is it for us to ask why....”14 Why? There is no answer to this
blatant contradiction—and to hide behind mystery is irresponsible!
All that is necessary? Then all would be saved! What an uncalvinistic
statement, yet Spurgeon agreed. How could anyone disagree, since this is
what God himself declared: “What could have been done more to my
vineyard [Israel], that I have not done in it? Wherefore, when I looked
that it should bring forth grapes, brought it forth wild grapes (Isaiah 5:3-
4)?
Here is the message of the entire Bible: God himself says He has done
all He could in providing salvation, which He offers freely in His love and
grace to all mankind—but it can’t be forced upon anyone; it must be
received by faith in His promise. God is genuinely mourning over Israel!
What more could God have done? That question is mockery if
Calvinism is true! He could have predestined them to salvation, extended
Irresistible Grace, sovereignly regenerated them, and given them faith to
believe the gospel—if this is imposed by sovereign will, with no choice by
man required.
The only way that God could have done all He could, yet men remain
unsaved, is if man may choose to accept or reject the salvation He offers.
That conclusion is inescapable—but that biblical logic cannot be
acknowledged, for it would destroy Calvinism.
This passage in Isaiah 5 is generally given a wide berth by Calvinist
apologists. White avoids it. MacArthur attempts to support his
misrepresentation of God’s love with an equally mistaken statement from
17th-century Calvinist pastor and writer Andrew Fuller: “Likewise God
gave no effectual grace to those who are accused of bringing forth wild
grapes instead of grapes; yet He looked for and asked what He could have
done more for His vineyard that He had not done (Isaiah 5:4).”15 Well, He
could have given “effectual grace”! Except that this term isn’t biblical but
is an invention of Calvinists to support their theory.
How can it be rationally said that God “offers all that is necessary to
salvation” to those whom He “purposely leaves and reprobates...to
perish”?
The conflict would be resolved, the contradiction disappear, the
misrepresentation of God be erased, and God’s love be vindicated by the
simple admission that man has a God-given genuine power of choice. But
the Calvinist cannot admit to that fact—nor could Luther, after writing an
entire book against free will.
Christ Is Speaking as the God of Israel
How do we understand Christ’s lament over Jerusalem? From
comparing the gospel accounts, we know that Jesus had just made His
triumphal entry into Jerusalem and was in the temple when He made the
statement in Matthew 23. Luke specifically declares that as He rode into
the city on the colt of an ass He wept as He beheld Jerusalem from a
vantage point:
And when he was come near, he beheld the city, and wept over it, saying, If thou
hadst known, even thou, at least in this thy day, the things which belong unto thy
peace! but now they are hid from thine eyes. For...thine enemies shall...lay thee
even with the ground, and thy children within thee...because thou knewest not the
time of thy visitation. (Luke 19:41–44)

There is no doubt that Christ wept over the city of Jerusalem as He

looked upon it. Nor can there be any doubt that when in the temple He
lamented, “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem,” He was referring to the city and all
of its inhabitants down through history, not to any certain segment of the
population. “Thy children” could only mean the inhabitants of Jerusalem,
not the babes and youth. To suggest, as White stated in a letter, that
“those who were ‘unwilling’ were not those Jesus sought to gather” does
violence to what Jesus says: “How often would I...but ye would not.” He is
specifically saying that He wanted to gather them, but they were
unwilling. As He had so often as Yahweh in the past and now as their
Messiah come in the flesh, He is addressing the inhabitants of Jerusalem
as that city’s children: “Return, ye backsliding children...” (Jeremiah 3:22).
Non-adults only were addressed? Hardly.
Furthermore, Christ’s very words, “How often would I,” were a direct
claim to deity, a claim that White, in his zeal to defend Calvinism, misses
completely. Christ is claiming multiple prior pleadings over Jerusalem, yet
no such instances are recorded in the gospel accounts during His
incarnation. Unquestionably, Christ is presenting Himself as the God of
Israel who had sent His prophets generation after generation to warn the
inhabitants of Jerusalem, often called “the children of Israel...the children
of Judah,” that if they did not repent, His wrath would be poured out
upon them.
Many passages could be quoted, each of which by itself could explain
Christ’s statement. Here are but a few of such lamentations and warnings
from God at the mouth of only one of His prophets, Jeremiah. Only in this
context, and as the God of Israel, is there justification for Christ to use the
words “how often would I…but ye would not.”
Go and cry in the ears of Jerusalem...Thus saith the LORD; I remember thee, the
kindness of thy youth, the love of thine espousals, when thou wentest after me in
the wilderness.... Israel was holiness unto the LORD...[but] my people
have...forsaken me.... My bowels, my bowels! I am pained at my very heart...O my
soul, the sound...of war. Destruction upon destruction.... For my people is foolish,
they have not known me; they are sottish children.... Woe unto thee, O Jerusalem!
wilt thou not be made clean? I spake unto you, rising up early and speaking, but ye
heard not; and I called you, but ye answered not.… I have even sent unto you all
my servants the prophets, daily rising up early and sending them: yet they
hearkened not unto me.... Thus saith the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel; Behold, I
will bring evil upon this place...because they have forsaken me...and have burned
incense...unto other gods...and have filled this place with the blood of innocents;
they have built also the high places of Baal, to burn their sons with fire for burnt
offerings unto Baal.... I will make this city desolate...because of all the houses upon
whose roofs they have burned incense unto all the host of heaven, and have
poured out drink offerings unto other gods. For this city hath been to me as a
provocation of mine anger and of my fury from the day that they built it even unto
this day...because of all the evil of the children of Israel and of the children of
Judah...they, their kings, their princes, their priests, and their prophets, and the
men of Judah, and the inhabitants of Jerusalem.… Though I taught them, rising up
early and teaching them, yet they have not hearkened to receive instruction.
(Jeremiah 2:2–3,13; 4:19–22; 7:13, 25–26; 13:27; 19:3–13; 32:31–33; etc.)

If these and hundreds of similar declarations from the prophets,

echoed by Christ, do not express a genuine loving concern on God’s part
for Israel to repent so that His wrath need not be poured out upon her,
then words have no meaning. Such sincere concern in the face of Israel’s
refusal to repent completely refutes TULIP. Otherwise, God’s pleadings
and warnings are a sham.
If men are totally depraved (as by the Calvinist definition), then there
is no point in God’s pleading with them. If only a few are among the elect
and God is not sincerely offering salvation, but withholds the Irresistible
Grace without which they cannot repent, then hundreds of pages in the
Bible are a farce, the pretended pleadings from a Calvinist God who has
no real love except for the elect, and no intention of helping those over
whom He supposedly weeps. To support TULIP from the Bible, the
Calvinist must do violence to Scripture.
Is There a Real Battle for Souls?
Paul tells us that Satan, “the god of this world hath blinded the minds
of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of
Christ...should shine unto them” (2 Corinthians 4:4). Why would it be
necessary for Satan to blind the totally depraved who are as spiritually
blind as one could be? Indeed, they are dead, and dead men can’t see.
Calvinism makes this passage (and many others) meaningless.
As for the elect, if, as Calvinism declares, they are sovereignly
regenerated and by Irresistible Grace given the faith to believe, and
nothing can prevent them from hearing and believing the gospel, it would
be impossible for Satan to blind them and therefore, there would be no
point in his even trying. And since the non-elect are already damned,
there would be no real battle between God and Satan for souls, no real
conflict within the human heart, the whole thing having already been
decided by God with nothing Satan or man could do to change that fact.
Paul would have been wasting his time disputing and persuading—and
the same would be true of our seeking to win to Christ those whom God
has predestined to hell.
 Calvinism, if it were true, would make a joke of the Bible’s warnings
about Satan. God’s withholding Irresistible Grace does a better job of
damning souls than Satan ever could. That enemy of souls could go on a
long vacation. Yet the Bible declares, “Your adversary the devil, as a
roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour” (1 Peter 5:8);
“The great dragon...that old serpent, called the Devil, and
Satan...deceiveth the whole world” (Revelation 12:9).
“As many as received him...” sounds as though the volitional act of
receiving is required on the part of the convicted sinner. Eternal life is a
free gift. A gift cannot be merited, earned, or paid for in any way, but it
must be received. Surely, to “receive” requires some acquiescence on the
part of the recipient. Anything imposed upon someone by a grace that is
“irresistible” is not a gift received.
Indeed, how can grace be irresistible? The very term “irresistible
grace” is self-contradictory. How can it be an act of “grace” to impart to
someone something the person neither believes nor desires? “God
doesn’t force anyone,” says the Calvinist. Then what does “irresistible”
mean? “God is just removing their resistance,” is the reply. Irresistibly
removing it? If it is not against their will, why must it be irresistible?
Would that not fill heaven with those who had been unwilling to
believe in Christ, to love God, or even to be there, but who had been
irresistibly made willing? “Not so,” counters the Calvinist, in defense of
his theory. “God through Irresistible Grace has wrought a regenerative
transformation so that those thus blessed truly love God from their
hearts.”
But if this could be done for the elect, it could be done for all mankind.
How could the infinite love of God leave anyone out? That brings us back
to the compelling question: What love is this that loves so few? And why
would the God of love and truth plead with those whom He had already
predestined to doom to repent and believe the gospel? Calvinism turns
most of the Bible into a pretense, a mere charade.
Luther’s Astonishing “Answer”
In his debate with Luther, Erasmus argued that God’s pleadings with a
man to repent, who could not do so, would be like asking someone whose
hands were tied to use them. Luther countered that God, by calling us to
do what we can’t do, is “trying us, that by His law He may bring us to a
knowledge of our impotence, if we are His friends...[and] deservedly
taunting and mocking us, if we are His proud enemies.”16 He argued that
Erasmus might just as well conclude from “‘If thou wilt keep the
commandments, they shall preserve thee’...therefore, man is able to keep
the commandments.”17
Luther seemed to have forgotten that even unsaved men keep at least
much of the Law most of the time. Even Calvin himself admitted that
“total depravity” doesn’t mean man is necessarily as wicked as he could
be. Both Scripture and experience prove that all men do some good; and
some “totally depraved” men at times exceed in goodness the behavior of
some apparently genuine Christians.
Furthermore, to show man his impotence to keep the Law is to taunt
him unless there is a remedy available. That remedy is the gospel, which
requires that I come to Christ in faith, believing on Him as the One who
paid the penalty for my sins. Nor does the fact that I cannot perfectly
keep the Law prove in the least that I cannot come to Christ and believe
on Him and receive by faith the benefit of His payment for my breach of
the Law. Here is the classic distinction between works and faith. And if my
only hope is sovereign regeneration by God, and He for His good pleasure
will not grant it to me, what is the point of showing me my hopelessness?
Paul declares that “the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto
Christ” (Galatians 3:24). To the Calvinist, “us” refers to the elect. Yet even
they were unregenerate before coming to Christ. If being “dead in
trespasses and in sins” means that man is morally a corpse, how could the
Law bring anyone to Christ? This is not the Father irresistibly dragging the
elect to Christ and sovereignly regenerating and then giving them faith to
believe. This is the Law working upon the conscience like a
“schoolmaster.” How could the Law affect the conscience of “moral
corpses”?
If men could not keep even one commandment for one moment, then
the Law would not only be a mockery but to no purpose. But if
unregenerate man (as is the case) does understand the Law, keeps it at
least some of the time, and has a guilty conscience for breaking it, then
how can he morally be a corpse? And if unregenerate man can choose to
obey or disobey the Law, why cannot he choose to believe the gospel—
and where does the Bible say that he can’t? It doesn’t.
That Inescapable Will Again!
It is interesting to see how The Canons of Dort handle this problem.
The fact that man has a will with which he could make moral choices is
admitted, but it became depraved by the fall. As a consequence, man is
supposedly impotent to respond to the gospel. The Holy Spirit must
therefore sovereignly regenerate him in order to “heal” that deficiency:
But as man by the fall did not cease to be a creature, endowed with understanding
and will, nor did sin which pervaded the whole race of mankind, deprive him of the
human nature, but brought upon him depravity and spiritual death; so also the
grace of regeneration does not treat men as senseless stocks and blocks, nor takes
away their will and its properties, neither does violence thereto; but spiritually
quickens, heals, corrects, and at the same time sweetly and powerfully ends it;
that where carnal rebellion and resistance formerly prevailed, a ready and sincere
spiritual obedience begins to reign; in which the true and spiritual restoration and
freedom of our will consist.18

Dort offers a strange solution: “the grace of regeneration...spiritually

quickens, heals, corrects, and at the same time sweetly and powerfully
ends [the will]....” What an odd “healing” that puts an end to what it
“heals”! Why wasn’t this “ready and sincere spiritual obedience”
implanted in Adam and Eve? And now that the elect have this new will
through regeneration, why don’t they always obey God perfectly?
The reason can only be that a “will” is no will unless the person whose
will it is wills with it. The will can be used for good or evil. The will cannot
be denied or dismissed. Calvin and Luther tried to explain it away, but
that is not possible. The will is one of the subjects most frequently
referred to in the Bible. Unregenerate men are repeatedly called upon to
exercise the will in choosing to obey God.
Even the regenerated have a fleshly will that, despite Dort, apparently
wasn’t ended at the new birth: “For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit,
and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the
other...” (Galatians 5:17).
As we have seen, the words “will,” “willing,” “free-will,” “freewill,”
“free will,” along with related expressions such as “voluntary,” “choose,”
etc., are found nearly 4,000 times in Scripture. The requirement of willing
obedience is a theme that runs all through the Bible: “If ye be willing and
obedient...” (Isaiah 1:19), “If thou believest with all thine heart” (Acts
8:37), etc.
God does not impose Himself upon us. He wants our hearts, and the
very concept of “heart” used all through Scripture is meaningless without
free will.
“Where Is Boasting Then?”
The Calvinist counters that if man could choose whether or not to
believe the gospel, he could boast that he had contributed to his
salvation. And it is asserted that man’s will is not free to act in that
manner. In declaring that “of the great body of mankind some should be
predestined to salvation, and others to destruction,”19 Calvin argues that
there is “no other means of humbling us as we ought, or making us feel
how much we are bound to him [Christ].... It is plain how greatly
ignorance of this principle detracts from the glory of God, and impairs
true humility.”20
On the contrary, Paul says that since all we can do is to believe, there is
nothing to boast about. “Where is boasting then?” asks Paul. “It is
excluded,” he declares definitively, “by...faith” (Romans 3:27). So rather
than faith giving cause for boasting, it is the very reason why there can be
no boasting. Once again, Calvin is seen to be in direct opposition to
Scripture. Nevertheless, Palmer insists that “Calvin simply expounded the
Bible...[he] uncovered truths that had been in the Bible all the time.”21
A Calvinist author declares, “If God only saves people who of their own
supposed free will accept Jesus, then they merit salvation. They deserve
to be saved.... The notion of free will exalts man because man elects God
and God only ratifies man’s choice.”22 Again, the necessity to defend
Calvinism drives its defenders into irrationality.
To accept salvation by faith no more means that the person who does
so has thereby merited that gift of God’s grace than the acceptance of a
free meal and a night’s lodging by a destitute person means that he or
she has thereby merited this charity. “Deserve to be saved”? The mere
acceptance of a gift does not mean that the person deserves it. “God only
ratifies man’s choice”? No, it is God who sets the terms of salvation,
which man must accept to be saved—and if he doesn’t, he is lost
eternally. And that brings merit to man and basis to boast? Hardly.
There is great confusion on this matter of the will because there is no
escaping the fact that, as Spurgeon admitted, “Man’s will has its proper
place in the matter of salvation.... When a man receives the Divine Grace
of Christ, he does not receive it against his will.... Nor again, mark you, is
the will taken away. For God does not come and convert the intelligent
free agent into a machine.”23
In the same sermon, however, Spurgeon denounces the idea that man
can choose whether to believe in Christ or not as making “the purpose of
God in the great plan of salvation entirely contingent [upon man’s will].”
His objection is to man’s “coming to God [being] the result of his
unassisted nature.”24 Not unassisted by God’s grace and Holy Spirit
conviction, of course. But man’s will must still make its own choice, or
God has not won the heart.
Who would say that man can come to God “unassisted” by the Holy
Spirit? Not even the rankest Arminian! But Calvinism makes that false
charge against those who disagree with its extremism. Indeed, to insist
that unbelieving man must first be regenerated and irresistibly caused to
come takes “grace” far beyond man’s being assisted [i.e., drawn by God
through the conviction and power of the Holy Spirit and the Word]. That
word “irresistible” associated with grace creates the problem, because it
allows no willingness or faith on man’s part. And that libels God, as we
have stated repeatedly. If man is totally incapable of believing and must
be irresistibly dragged to Christ, then surely it denies God’s love to
declare that He will not to do this for all mankind.
Man Is Meaningless Without a Will
There is no escaping the fact that the will is essential in any meaningful
relationship between man and man, or between man and God. After
denouncing “free will,” Spurgeon contradicts himself again, ending that
sermon by quoting, “Whosoever will, let him come, and take the water of
life freely.”25 Unless one can say yes or no to the offer of salvation, it
could not be a gift of God’s love. Nor does God ratify man’s choice; man
either accepts on God’s terms the free gift of salvation—or he doesn’t.
Thus, all who will spend eternity in the Lake of Fire will be there by their
own choice. They cannot say, as Calvinism does, that it was God who sent
them there.
Is it not foolish to suggest that receiving a gift means that we deserve
it? Calvinism denies the very distinction the Bible makes: “For the wages
of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our
Lord” (Romans 6:23). Wages are earned, but a gift cannot be earned or
merited; thus receiving a gift provides no cause for boasting.
We are commanded to come to the Lord Jesus Christ, believing in Him
as our Savior, but that does not mean that anyone is forced to do so. And,
yes, the Father draws us. But without our willingness, for Him to
irresistibly cause us to believe in and receive Him would not be a gift
received, nor would it establish a love relationship between us and God,
either on His side or ours.
A drowning man who allows himself to be rescued has nothing to
boast about, nor can he take any credit for his rescue. So it is with the lost
sinner who allows Christ to rescue him: he has nothing to boast of, for he
has contributed nothing to his salvation.
Calvinism, as we have seen, makes nonsense of such scriptures as “he
that winneth souls is wise…they that turn many to righteousness…we
persuade men” (Proverbs 11:30; Daniel 12:3; 2 Corinthians 5:11). To win
someone over to believe in Christ requires persuasion. This is the job of
the Holy Spirit through the gospel, and He graciously uses human
instruments to present the gospel. Our hearts are won as the Father
draws us and as Christ’s love arouses a response of love within us: “We
love him, because he first loved us” (1 John 4:19)—not because He
caused us to do so by changing our wills.
Commissioned by God to Persuade Men
Calvinism denies that there is any winning or any persuading—
salvation comes by sovereign regeneration and Irresistible Grace
imposed. If one must be regenerated and then made to believe, the
gospel would have no part in the new birth, preaching it would be
pointless, there would be no persuading the unregenerate sinner, and it
would be a waste of time to attempt to do so. Yet Paul expended himself
for Christ doing exactly that: disputing and persuading in the attempt to
win people to Christ.
As soon as he was converted, Paul “confounded the Jews...at
Damascus, proving that this is very Christ...” (Acts 9:22). Everywhere he
went, Paul “disputed...in the synagogue...and in the market daily...” (Acts
17:17). The last chapter of Acts tells us that even while under house
arrest in Rome, Paul was still at it: “...there came many to him...to whom
he expounded...persuading them concerning Jesus...” (Acts 28:23).
Paul said, “I am made all things to all men, that I might by all means
save some” (1 Corinthians 9:22). Through his powerful preaching of the
gospel, he won many to Christ wherever he went. There is not a word
about Irresistible Grace regenerating the sinners to whom Paul preached
and God then giving them faith. Never is there even a hint of this process!
The consistent tone of Scripture is clear. The Calvinist must search
diligently to find a passage here and there that he can “interpret” to
seemingly support TULIP.
Paul wrote to the Thessalonian believers: “For our gospel came not
unto you in word only, but also in power, and in the Holy Ghost, and in
much assurance; as ye know what manner of men we were among you
for your sake” (1 Thessalonians 1:5). The Holy Spirit brought conviction
and assurance through the gospel preached, and the lives Paul and his
companions lived before them were part of that conviction. Why all of
this explanation, if God sovereignly regenerates and then irresistibly
imparts “faith”? Calvinism just doesn’t fit the diligent and fruitful
preaching of the gospel by the Apostles to sinners from city to city—nor
Christ’s command for us to do likewise.
Through the Word of God preached by Paul and Barnabas, Jews and
Greeks were persuaded to believe, and as a result of that belief in Christ,
they were regenerated. Paul said to those at Corinth whom he had won
to Christ, “for in Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the gospel” (1
Corinthians 4:15). Clearly, their acceptance of the gospel that Paul
preached brought about their regeneration. TULIP denies this clear
biblical pattern.
Palmer reasons, “Only when the Holy Spirit regenerates man and makes
him alive spiritually can man have faith in Christ and be saved.”26
Paul’s Fervent Preaching and Example
Empowered by the Holy Spirit, Paul diligently persuaded multitudes by
the preaching of the gospel. To this he devoted his life: “Knowing,
therefore the terror of the Lord, we persuade men” (2 Corinthians 5:11).
Where did Paul get this notion, so contrary to Calvinism, that men had to
be persuaded to believe the gospel? He received this clear understanding
from Christ himself. When Christ appeared to Paul on the road to
Damascus, He sent him to Jews and Gentiles
...to open their eyes, and to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power
of Satan unto God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins, and inheritance
among them which are sanctified by faith.… (Acts 26:18)

What would be the need of Paul opening men’s eyes and turning them
from darkness to light through the Spirit-empowered preaching of the
gospel if it all happens through sovereign regeneration, with Irresistible
Grace and faith imposed as a result? Calvinism is refuted by the very
commission Christ conferred upon Paul and the other Apostles. In relating
this encounter with Christ to King Agrippa, Paul declared:
I was not disobedient...but shewed first unto them of Damascus, and at Jerusalem,
and throughout all the coasts of Judaea, and then to the Gentiles, that they should
repent and turn to God.... I continue unto this day, witnessing both to small and
great, saying none other things than those which the prophets and Moses did
say.... (Acts 26:19–23)

In spite of his staunch support for Calvinism at times, what Spurgeon

said at other times undermined it. As though he rejected Irresistible
Grace and upheld free will, just as he rejected regeneration without faith
and before salvation, Spurgeon argued:
 Now, Brethren, how is your heart and my heart changed in any matter? Why, the
instrument generally is persuasion. A friend sets before us a truth we did not know
before. He pleads with us. Puts it in a new light and then we say, “Now, I see that,”
and our hearts are changed towards the thing.... The Spirit makes a revelation of
the Truth of God to the soul, whereby it sees things in a different light from what it
ever did before. And then the will cheerfully bows that neck which once was stiff
as iron and wears the yoke which once it despised....

Yet, mark, the will is not gone.... If you are willing, depend upon it that God is
willing. Soul, if you are anxious after Christ, He is more anxious after you.... Let
your willingness to come to Christ be a hopeful sign and symptom.

As we have already noted, he ended the sermon with, “It is not of him
that wills, nor of him that runs, but of God that shows mercy. Yet
—‘whosoever will, let him come, and take the water of life freely.’”27
The Bottom Line
In a personal letter accompanied by some of his writings, author and
apologist Rob Zins states, “The Word of God teaches that all men are
responsible before God and accountable. That all men are equally
‘unable’ to please God is also undeniable. But, inability does not diminish
responsibility.” God’s love seems to be forgotten. Zins goes on to argue:
To say that God “allows it” but does not “will it” but lets it take place, puts you in
no better position than the Calvinist who says that God could give irresistible grace
to all but does not want to do so. How is it that one can feel better about God
allowing corruption, abortion, murder and lust, when He could stop it...?28

We’ve covered this already. Yes, God could stop all evil immediately
(by wiping out mankind), but God gave man the genuine power of choice
so that he could receive God’s love and love Him in return. The cessation
of sin could come only by destroying the human race as He once did by
the flood. However, in His grace and love He allowed Noah and his family
to survive. Sadly, through them sin survived and grew into the horror we
see occurring daily. The God of the Bible, however, has a loving solution
for sin for all who will believe the gospel and receive the Lord Jesus Christ
as Savior.
 Calvinism, on the other hand, claims that God could rescue everyone
from hell by imposing His will upon them—which He does for the elect
only. He could deliver everyone from all suffering and disease and death
—but foreordained the wickedness rampant today. He could have left this
world a paradise without sin ever invading it, because man has no real
choice under Calvinism, and therefore, God himself is even the author of
evil.
There is a huge difference between Calvinism’s view of God, sin, and
salvation—and that which we present herein as the biblical teaching. The
difference is “Calvinism’s love,” which isn’t love at all.
This teaching, that “God,” being the cause of even the typist’s error,
could have a world without any sin or suffering or death, but for His own
good pleasure chose the world of rampant evil and suffering as it is today,
is a libel upon God’s character. At the root of this libel is a denial of God’s
sincere love for man.
The issue we have been dealing with is very simple: Which God is the
biblical One—the God of Calvinism, or the God of love who is not willing
that any perish, but has given them the right to choose? There is no
question which God rings true to the conscience that is given even to the
unsaved. And this is the God of the Bible.
Man is a created being. As such, he is necessarily less than his Creator.
That being the case, man can only make less-than-perfect choices. The
amount and degree of evil on this earth will be limited only by man’s
imagination and the extent to which constituted authority controls
human behavior. As Paul foretold, so it has happened: “But evil men and
seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived” (2
Timothy 3:13). Nor is that condition what God desires for man, but
contrary to His will, though He allows it.
God Contrasted with False Gods
 Suffering and rampant evil are the fault of man’s willful choices, which
have corrupted everything he touches. Sin, suffering, and death are not
God’s doing or desire, nor anything God could stop without destroying
the world—which He will do one day: “the heavens shall pass away with a
great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also
and the works that are therein shall be burned up.... Nevertheless we,
according to his promise, look for a new heavens and a new earth,
wherein dwelleth righteousness” (2 Peter 3:10–13).
Until then, God “is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any
should perish” (2 Peter 3:9). God himself has come as a man to pay the
infinite penalty demanded by His infinite justice for the sins of the whole
world (1 John 2:2). He offers pardon to all and sends forth the gospel of
salvation to “whosoever will believe.”
Men are responsible for their sin and for their eternal destiny, because
salvation is offered to all as a free gift and all have the ability either to
receive it or to reject it. Calvinism insists that man has no such capability,
yet he is responsible anyway. To hold someone responsible for failing to
do what he cannot do would be like saying that a baby is responsible to
run the 100–meter high hurdles in world-record time.
How can a just God hold sinners responsible to repent and believe in
Christ, when He withholds from them the essential ability to do so? The
very sense of justice that God himself has instilled in human conscience
cries out against such a travesty! And here we confront once again the
real issue: God’s holy, just, merciful, and loving character is maligned by
Calvinism’s misrepresentation.
Zins quotes R. L. Dabney to the effect “that the absence of volition in
God to save all does not imply a lack of love. God has true love which is
constrained by consistent and holy reasons known only to Himself.”29
Such rationalizations fail because genuine love never fails. There are no
“holy reasons” why God could not do for the reprobate what He does for
the elect! There is no whitewashing Calvinism’s God from His failure to
rescue those whom He could rescue. Nor can this evident lack of love and
compassion be excused due to “reasons known only to Himself.” The so-
called hyper-Calvinist frankly admits these simple facts; the self-professed
“moderates” deny them.
The Bible contrasts the truth, purity, love, and mercy of the true God
with the capricious destructiveness of pagan gods. In the process, the
prophets appeal to our reason and to the conscience God has given us.
Baal is exposed as a false god not worthy of worship because of its
demand that children be sacrificed in the sacred fires on its altars. Can
Baal be excused by “reasons known only to himself”? Would the true
God, for reasons known only to Himself, cause billions to burn eternally in
the Lake of Fire, whom He could deliver as He delivered the elect? Never!
It is legitimate to appeal to conscience and reason in exposing false
gods. Surely no lesser standard should be applied to the true God.
Therefore, any supposed deity that is less gracious, less loving, less kind,
and less merciful than man’s conscience tells him he must be cannot be
the true God. To attribute to Him any lack of love and mercy is surely to
misrepresent the God revealed in the Bible.

1. John MacArthur, Author and General Editor, The MacArthur Study Bible (Nashville, TN:
Word Publishing, 1997), 1437-1438.
2. John MacArthur, The Love of God (Dallas, TX: Word Publishing, 1996), 111-112, 121.
3. MacArthur, Love, 134.
4. Cited by J. I. Packer and O. R. Johnston in their “Historical and Theological Introduction”
to Luther, Bondage, 56.
5. Excerpted from The New Park Street Pulpit, “Sovereign Grace and Man’s Responsibility,”
a sermon by C. H. Spurgeon delivered August 1, 1858 at the Music Hall, Royal Surrey
Gardens.
6. MacArthur, Love.
 7. Ibid., 101.
8. Ibid., 102.
9. Ibid., 16.
10. Ibid., 12-13.
11. Ibid., 120.
12. Ibid., 103.
13. Ibid., 95.
14. Cited by J. I. Packer and O. R. Johnston in their “Historical and Theological Introduction”
to Luther, Bondage, 56.
15. MacArthur, Love, 196.
16. Martin Luther, The Bondage of the Will, trans. J. I. Packer and O. R. Johnston (Grand
Rapids, MI: Fleming H. Revell, 1957, 11th prtg. 1999), 153.
17. Ibid., 154.
18. Canons of Dort (Dordrecht, Holland, 1619), sec. III/IV, para.16; cited in Vance, Other Side,
619.
19. Calvin, Institutes, III:xxi,1.
20. Ibid.
21. Palmer, foreword to five points, 2.
22. Wm. Oosterman, “Take a Long Look at the Doctrine of Election” (Ottawa, Canada: The
Lord’s Library Publications, n. d.), 3. Available from Westboro Baptist Church, Ottawa.
23. Charles Haddon Spurgeon, “God’s Will and Man’s Will,” No. 442 (Newington:
Metropolitan Tabernacle; sermon delivered Sunday morning, March 30, 1862).
24. Ibid.
25. Ibid.
26. Palmer, five points, 27.
27. Spurgeon, “God’s Will.”
28. Robert M. Zins to Dave Hunt, August 23, 2000. On file.
29. Ibid.
29—Perseverance of the Saints
BEFORE BEGINNING what turned into an urgent and in-depth study of
Calvinism, I had thought that I was at least a one-point Calvinist. Surely
my belief in eternal security—the assurance of living eternally in God’s
presence through being redeemed by Christ and kept secure in Him—
must be the same as Calvinism’s Perseverance of the Saints. That turned
out, however, not to be the case, and I was surprised to discover why.
Biblical assurance of salvation does not depend upon one’s
performance, but upon the gospel truth that Christ died for the sins of the
world, and upon His promise that whosoever believes in Him receives the
free and unconditional gift of eternal life.
In contrast, the Calvinist’s assurance is in God’s having predestined
him to eternal life as one of the elect. Coppes insists that “God’s answer
to doubt...the only proper fount of assurance of salvation...of getting to
heaven (glorification) is the doctrine of predestination.”1 That view has
serious problems, as we shall see. How does the Calvinist know he is one
of the elect who have been predestined? His performance plays a large
part in helping him to know whether or not he is among that select group.
In contrast, my faith, hope, trust, and confidence is in my Savior the
Lord Jesus Christ, who paid on the Cross the full penalty for my sins.
Therefore, according to His promise, which I have believed, my sins are
forgiven. I have been born again into God’s family as His dear child.
Heaven is my eternal home. My hope is in Christ alone.
Christ calls, “Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden,
and I will give you rest” (Matthew 11:28). Laden with sin, I came to Him
and, as He promised, found eternal rest in Him alone. Christ guarantees,
“him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out” (John 6:37). I came to
Him by faith in His Word and He will never cast me out—i.e., I can never
be lost. My assurance is in His promise and keeping power, not in my
efforts or performance. He said, “I give unto them [my sheep] eternal life;
and they shall never perish” (John 10:28). It would be strange “eternal
life” indeed if it were mine today by His gracious gift and taken away by
His judgment tomorrow.
Yet many professing Christians (including many Five-Point Calvinists
who believe in Perseverance of the Saints) are troubled with doubts
concerning their salvation. Doubts even assail leading Calvinists.
Zane C. Hodges points out that “The result of this theology is
disastrous. Since, according to Puritan belief, the genuineness of a man’s
faith can only be determined by the life that follows it, assurance of
salvation becomes impossible at the moment of conversion.”2 And, one
might add, at any time thereafter as well, if one’s life ever fails to meet
the biblical standard.
Piper and his staff write, “[W]e must also own up to the fact that our
final salvation is made contingent upon the subsequent obedience which
comes from faith.”3 Small comfort or assurance in my ability to obey!
Indeed, the fifth point is called perseverance of the saints, putting the
burden on me. No wonder, then, as R. T. Kendall has commented, that
“nearly all of the Puritan ‘divines’ went through great doubt and despair
on their deathbeds as they realized their lives did not give perfect
evidence that they were elect.”4
Arminius, on the other hand, contrary to the false label attached to
him by his enemies, had perfect assurance. He confidently declared that
the believer can “depart out of this life...to appear before the throne of
grace, without any anxious fear....”5
An Endemic Uncertainty of Salvation
Oddly, the reason for such uncertainty among Calvinists is found
where one would expect assurance—in the “P” of TULIP: Perseverance of
the Saints. Clearly, the emphasis is upon the believer’s faithfulness in
persevering—not upon God’s keeping power.
Strangely enough, certainty of salvation and confidence of one’s
eternal destiny are not to be found in the fifth point of Calvinism where
one would expect it. Nor can they be found in the other four points.
Although many Calvinists would deny it, uncertainty as to one’s ultimate
salvation is, in fact, built into the very fabric of Calvinism itself.
Congdon writes, “Absolute assurance of salvation is impossible in
Classical Calvinism...[emphasis his]. Understand why: Since works are an
inevitable outcome of ‘true’ salvation, one can only know he or she is
saved by the presence of good works. But since no one is perfect...any
assurance is at best imperfect as well. Therefore, you may think you
believed in Jesus Christ, may think you had saving faith, but be sadly
mistaken...and because unsaved, be totally blind to the fact you are
unsaved...! R. C. Sproul...in an article entitled ‘Assurance of Salvation,’
writes: ‘There are people in this world who are not saved, but who are
convinced that they are....’
“When our assurance of salvation is based at all on our works, we can
never have absolute assurance...! But does Scripture discourage giving
objective assurance of salvation? Hardly! On the contrary, the Lord Jesus
(John 5:24), Paul (Romans 8:38–39), and John (1 John 5:11–13) have no
qualms about offering absolute, objective assurance of salvation.
Furthermore, works are never included as a requirement for assurance.”6
Bob Wilkin of Grace Evangelical Society reports what he heard at
Sproul’s Ligonier National Conference (with about 5,000 present), June
15–17, 2000 in Orlando, Florida:
John Piper...described himself as “a seven point Calvinist”...[and said] that no
Christian can be sure he is a true believer; hence there is an ongoing need to be
dedicated to the Lord and deny ourselves so that we might make it. [We must
 endure to the end in faith if we are to be saved.7]

This struck me as odd, since there was so much emphasis on the sovereignty of
God in this conference. Yet when it comes right down to it, within a Reformed
perspective God uses fear of hell to motivate Christians to live for Him.

My heart is heavy as I write this from Orlando. I feel such a burden for the people
here. Why? Because their theology makes assurance impossible. It [lack of
assurance] permeated the whole conference.8

What a commentary, that lack of assurance of salvation permeated the

Ligonier National Conference featuring major Calvinist speakers! Why
should that be? Because the Calvinist cannot rely upon Christ’s promise of
eternal life in the gospel (since that promise is for the elect alone), his
security lies in being one of the elect—but how can he be certain that he
is? Piper writes, “We believe in eternal security...the eternal security of
the elect.”9 And there one confronts a serious problem: How can any
Calvinist be certain that he is among that select company predestined for
heaven? He can’t. There is not a verse in the Bible telling anyone how to
be certain that he is among the elect.
Though Christ commanded that the gospel be preached to every
person living in the entire world, the Calvinist says it is effective for only
the elect. Others can imagine they believe the gospel, but not having
been sovereignly regenerated, their faith is not from God and will not
save. As Sproul and his fellow editors declare, “The fruit of regeneration is
faith. Regeneration precedes faith.”10
Indeed, the gospel offers false hope to the non-elect and, in fact,
condemns them. Thus, believing the gospel is of no value unless one has
first been sovereignly regenerated by God without faith, having been
predestined to salvation. Yet predestination was determined by God in
eternity past and, as Packer writes, “decreed by his counsel secret to
us”11—so how can that doctrine give assurance to anyone today? Who
can know that he is among the secretly predestined elect?
 No wonder, then, that many Calvinists are plagued by doubts
concerning their salvation. When facing such doubts, VanOverloop gives
the cheering advice to “wait prayerfully for a season of richer grace.”12
Otis, on the other hand, suggests that “One of the proofs that we are
genuinely saved is that our faith will persevere to the end of our lives.”13
But what if doubts come, such as confronted “nearly all of the Puritan
‘divines’”?
Disagreement on a Vital Point
Admittedly, there is no general agreement on this point. Many
Calvinists do affirm that believing the gospel brings assurance. In a
Calvinist symposium, the essay on assurance by D. A. Carson, which
attempts to give a balanced biblical view, does not offer any typical
Calvinist arguments for Perseverance of the Saints at all and comes to no
definitive conclusion.14 As we have seen, Calvin taught that being born
into a Calvinist family automatically made the child one of the elect, as
did infant baptism, so long as one believed in its efficacy. Thus, while
believing the gospel is no sure way to be saved, believing in one’s infant
baptism is.
Sproul declares, “Infants can be born again, although the faith they
exercise cannot be as visible as that of adults.”15 Infants have faith in
Christ—it is just less visible? Does Sproul or any other Calvinist really
believe that?
For the Calvinist, moreover, seeking assurance that one’s faith is
genuine raises further difficulties, because faith is a gift from God and has
nothing to do with man’s volition. But how can one know whether one’s
faith is a gift from God, or originates in his own mind and will?
Dillow quotes Dabney that each one must examine his faith, because it
is possible to have a false faith. This only raises further questions. Would
God give false faith? Calvin said He would and does. So if God gives true
faith to some and false faith to others, how could one know whether the
faith he thinks he has is genuine? Who could stand up to a delusion from
God? And how would infants examine their “faith”?
Yet Boettner carries on at length about faith being the assurance that
one is among the elect, and he argues that since faith “is not given to any
but the elect only, the person who knows that he has this faith can be
assured that he is among the elect.”16 But what about the false faith and
assurance that Calvin says God gives to the non-elect, the better to damn
them? The Geneva Study Bible makes no mention of that problem and
even suggests that John wrote his first epistle “to assure those who have
believed that they actually possess the priceless gift [of eternal life].”17
How can leading Calvinists be so ignorant of what John Calvin taught?
Attempting to fortify his argument from a different angle, Boettner
writes, “Every person who loves God and has a true desire for salvation in
Christ is among the elect, for the non-elect never have this love or this
desire.”18 By that standard, however, the Christians in the church at
Ephesus would have doubted their salvation because they no longer had
that fervent love (Revelation 2:4–5)—yet there is no suggestion that they
were not true Christians.
The Puritans struggled with this very question. Dillow accuses Dabney
of vainly trying to defend an “issue which dominated three hundred years
of English Puritan debate”19—considerable dissension indeed, and on a
very key point. Arminius, however, declared, “[M]y opinion is, that it is
possible for him who believes in Jesus Christ to be certain...that he is a
son of God, and stands in the grace of Jesus Christ.”20
Dillow, though a staunch Calvinist, disagrees that faith must be
examined. He argues, “The Bible never raises this issue.... Does a man
struggle to know if he loves his child...? We know we have believed aright
if we have believed according to biblical truth.... The issue is not a rational
examination of our faith...[but] a rational examination of the object of
faith, Jesus Christ, and the gospel offer.”21 He goes on to accuse fellow
Calvinists of being taken up with preserving a dogma:
Finally, the Bible explicitly and implicitly affirms that assurance is part of saving
faith.... “Faith is the assurance of things hoped for” (Hebrews 11:1). But in
addition, the scores of passages which tell us that “whosoever believes has eternal
life” surely imply that a person who has believed has eternal life.... Belief and
assurance are so obviously inseparable that only the interest of preserving the
Experimental Predestinarian doctrine of perseverance can justify their division.22

Uncomfortable with Jesus?

Following Calvin’s teaching, however, like the Jehovah’s Witnesses and
Mormons, many Calvinists believe that the only way to make one’s
“calling and election sure” (2 Peter 1:10) is not through faith but through
good works. Oddly, although the first four points of Calvinism insist that
man can do nothing, the fifth depends, in the view of many, upon human
effort. Boettner quotes Warfield: “It is idle to seek assurance of election
outside of holiness of life.”23 Likewise, Charles Hodge declares, “The only
evidence of our election...[and] perseverance, is a patient continuance in
well-doing.”24
But finding assurance in one’s works always leaves questions
unanswered in view of the undeniable fact, which we have commented
upon earlier, that the apparent good works of the unsaved sometimes
put professed Christians to shame. Furthermore, one’s performance
could be excellent most of one’s life, but if failure comes at some point,
one has lost performance-based assurance. R. C. Sproul expressed that
very concern for his own salvation:
A while back I had one of those moments of acute self-awareness...and suddenly
the question hit me: “R. C., what if you are not one of the redeemed? What if your
destiny is not heaven after all, but hell?” Let me tell you that I was flooded in my
body with a chill that went from my head to the bottom of my spine. I was
terrified.

I tried to grab hold of myself. I thought, “Well, it’s a good sign that I’m worried
 about this. Only true Christians really care about salvation.” But then I began to
take stock of my life, and I looked at my performance. My sins came pouring into
my mind, and the more I looked at myself, the worse I felt. I thought, “Maybe it’s
really true. Maybe I’m not saved after all.”

I went to my room and began to read the Bible. On my knees I said, “Well, here I
am. I can’t point to my obedience. There’s nothing I can offer.... I knew that some
people only flee to the Cross to escape hell.... I could not be sure about my own
heart and motivation. Then I remembered John 6:68.... Peter was also
uncomfortable, but he realized that being uncomfortable with Jesus was better
than any other option!25

Uncomfortable with Jesus?! Where is the comfort and assurance in

that? Couldn’t a Muslim obtain similar assurance through being
uncomfortable with Muhammad and the Qur’an, or a Mormon through
being uncomfortable with Joseph Smith? Why is it better to be
uncomfortable with Jesus than with Buddha? Where does the Bible
suggest, much less commend, being uncomfortable with Jesus? Nor is
that taught in this passage. This idea seems all the more pitiful, coming
from a Christian leader and theologian as his assurance that he is one of
the elect!
There is no escaping the necessity of evidence, and solid faith based
upon it, which the Bible and the Holy Spirit provide in abundance to the
believer. Peter could not understand what Christ meant about eating His
body and drinking His blood. But that did not change the fact that he
knew that Jesus was the Messiah. The important statement from Peter
was “Thou hast the words of eternal life. And we believe and are sure
that thou art that Christ, the Son of the living God” (John 6:68–69).
Such faith, however, is not sufficient to give the Calvinist assurance. It
would still leave him uncomfortable because the non-elect often think
they believe in Christ. According to Calvin, God even helps them with this
delusion. Where is that in the Bible?
We have every reason to be very comfortable with Jesus—and this is
one of the great blessings and part of the joy of our salvation. We have
absolute proof that the Bible is God’s Word, that Jesus is the Christ, that
the gospel is true, and we have the witness of the Holy Spirit within. The
Bible gives absolute assurance: “These things have I written unto you that
believe in the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have
eternal life...” (1 John 5:13). That assurance, according to this scripture
and many others, is for all those who simply believe in Christ. There is no
other basis for assurance of sins forgiven and eternal life.
Why doesn’t Sproul rely upon such promises? Because, for a Calvinist,
the question is not whether one has believed the gospel but whether one,
from eternity past, was predestined by God to be among the elect—and
that is an elusive question, as many a Calvinist has discovered to his
dismay.
The Gospel: God’s Power unto Salvation
In the following pages, the question of assurance will be illustrated
(compositely as we have heard it related by a number of people) through
a fictitious couple whom we shall call Al and Jan. They’ve been married
almost ten years and have two children. A devout Roman Catholic all of
his life, with two brothers who are priests and a sister who is a nun, Al
became a Christian a few months after his marriage. After six weeks of
struggling to resolve the obvious contradictions between the Catholicism
he had known all his life and his growing understanding of what the Bible
teaches, Al left that Church, was baptized as a believer, and has been
ostracized by his devoutly Catholic family ever since.
Jan, on the other hand, was a typical New Ager who had absolutely
rejected absolutes and was open to anything—except, of course, biblical
Christianity, which she disliked for being “too narrow.” It seemed like a
glorious miracle to both of them when Al was able to lead Jan to Christ
about six months after his own conversion.
For nearly eight years Al was happy in the faith, witnessing to friends
and family and seeing some come to Christ. He was crystal clear on the
gospel and the basis of his salvation. There was no doubt in his mind that
he had been convicted of sin, of righteousness, and of judgment to come
by the Holy Spirit (as all the world is, according to John 16:7–11). Having
believed the gospel that Christ died for his sins and that “whosoever
believeth on him should not perish, but have everlasting life,” Al had
placed his faith in the Lord Jesus Christ as his Savior.
At least he was sure at the time that he had believed on the Lord Jesus
Christ exactly as Paul exhorted the Philippian jailor, “Believe on the Lord
Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved” (Acts 16:30–31). As a result (or so it
had seemed to him), his life was changed, and this was the testimony he
had enthusiastically shared publicly in church and in witnessing to
individuals.
From the beginning of his new life in Christ, Al had had a hunger for
God’s Word as his spiritual food. He had read his Bible regularly with
great interest and enjoyment. He and Jan had become part of a seemingly
vibrant fellowship of Bible-believing Christians and had rejoiced together
in their new life in Christ. Then something happened—a sad tale I’ve been
told by a surprising number of people, that we come to now through Al
and Jan.

1. Leonard J. Coppes, Are Five Points Enough? The Ten Points of Calvinism (Denver, CO:
self-published, 1980), 25, 27.
2. Zane C. Hodges, author’s preface to The Gospel Under Siege (Dallas, TX: Kerugma, Inc.,
2nd ed. 1992), vi.
3. John Piper and Pastoral Staff, “TULIP: What We Believe about the Five Points of
Calvinism: Position Paper of the Pastoral Staff” (Minneapolis, MN: Desiring God Ministries,
1997) 25.
4. R. T. Kendall, Calvin and English Calvinism to 1649 (Oxford: Oxford University Press,
1979), 2; cited without page number by Bob Wilkin, “Ligonier National Conference” (The
Grace Report, July 2000).
5. Jacobus Arminius, The Works of James Arminius, trans. James and William Nichols (Grand
 Rapids,MI: Baker Book House, 1986), 1:667; cited in Laurence M. Vance, The Other Side of
Calvinism (Pensacola, FL: Vance Publications, rev. ed. 1999), 591.
6. Philip F. Congdon, “Soteriological Implications of Five-point Calvinism,” Journal of the
Grace Evangelical Society, Autumn 1995, 8:15, 55–68.
7. Piper and Staff, TULIP, 23.
8. Wilkin, “Ligonier,” 1–2.
9. Piper and Staff, TULIP, 24.
10. New Geneva Study Bible, “Regeneration: The New Birth” (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson
Publishers, 1995), 1664.
11. J. I. Packer, “The Love of God: Universal and Particular.” In Still Sovereign:
Contemporary Perspectives on Election, Foreknowledge and Grace, ed. Thomas R.
Schreiner and Bruce A. Ware (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2000), 281.
12. Ronald VanOverloop, “Calvinism and Missions: Pt. 2, Unconditional Election” (Grandville,
MI: Standard Bearer, January 15, 1993), 185; cited in Vance, Other Side, 403.
13. John M. Otis, Who is the Genuine Christian? (n. p., n. d.), 39; cited in Vance, Other Side,
595.
14. D. A. Carson, “Reflections on Assurance.” In Schreiner and Ware, Still, 247–48.
15. New Geneva Study Bible, 1664.
16. Loraine Boettner, The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian
and Reformed Publishing Co., 1932), 308.
17. New Geneva Study Bible (marginal note commenting upon 1 John 5:13), 1993.
18. Boettner, Reformed, 309.
19. Joseph C. Dillow, The Reign of the Servant Kings: A Study of Eternal Security and the
Final Significance of Man (Haysville, NC: Schoettle Publishing Co., 2nd ed. 1993), 192–93.
20. Arminius, Works, 1:667.
21. Dillow, Reign, 193.
22. Ibid., 291.
23. Boettner, Reformed, 309.
24. Charles Hodge, A Commentary on Romans (Carlisle, PA: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1972),
292.
25. R. C. Sproul, “Assurance of Salvation,” Tabletalk, Ligonier Ministries, Inc., November
1989, 20.
30—A Calvinist’s Honest Doubts
Al could not have been happier. He and Jan were more in love than ever
with one another and with the Lord. Their children were growing in Christ
as the family studied the Word of God and prayed together in their daily
devotions, and in the exuberant fellowship of other children at their
dynamic church. The only dark shadow was the continued rejection of Al’s
attempts to witness for his Lord to his Roman Catholic family, and the
continued tension that dampened family get-togethers. And then,
another disturbing influence invaded their lives, this time from a
completely unexpected source.
Almost unnoticed, Calvinism was introduced into a small men’s Bible
study group that Al attended. Lively discussions followed, which he found
intriguing and intellectually challenging. At about the same time,
Calvinistic doctrines crept into the pastor’s sermons with increasing
frequency and fervency. Although the pastor didn’t insist (as some
Calvinist pastors do) that every church member be a Calvinist, a number
of families left the church in protest over the new emphasis. They felt
they were no longer receiving the well-rounded biblical exegesis that had
attracted them in the first place. Instead, the pastor seemed to bring an
unbalanced emphasis upon God’s sovereignty into everything he taught—
though, of course, he didn’t think so. After all, he was only presenting
what the Bible said, though with a different understanding than his
sermons had reflected in previous years. It proved to be true once again,
as William MacDonald, author of more than 80 books in 100 languages,
has stated:
It is the practice of many Calvinists to press their views relentlessly upon others,
even if it leads to church division.... This “theological grid” or system becomes the
main emphasis of their conversation, preaching, public prayers and ministry. Other
 issues seem to pale in comparison. The system itself is only a deduction they make
from certain verses and is not directly taught in Scripture.1

Al was intrigued and swept along with the pastor’s new insights. This
was the man who had led him to Christ and discipled him, and now Al was
eager to follow him into what seemed to be a deeper understanding of
biblical truth. Jan, however, was not happy with the implication that God
didn’t love everyone and had predestined multitudes to eternal suffering,
and that Christ had not died for all mankind. She considered such
teaching to be directly in conflict both with her conscience and with what
the Bible clearly declared. She knew, however, that Al was happy and
seemed to be studying his Bible more diligently than ever, so she kept her
misgivings to herself.
Enter a Troubling Uncertainty
Seeing his interest, the pastor lent Al some books and tapes by John
MacArthur, John Piper, R. C. Sproul, and others. Al began listening to
Sproul’s daily Calvinist teaching on radio and bought a copy of the Geneva
Study Bible. Its notes convinced him that Calvinism was the faith of the
Reformation and the true gospel. Gradually the new “truth” began to
make more sense, and Al became convinced that what he was learning
followed logically from God’s sovereignty, a teaching he could now see
was neglected among most Christians.
Al became obsessed with God’s absolute sovereignty and was greatly
influenced by a book by Bruce Milne, in which its author said that God’s
will “is the final cause of all things...and even the smallest details of life.
God reigns in his universe....”2 Only later would he learn that these words
were an echo from John Calvin in his Institutes. Of course, the premier
writer on sovereignty was A. W. Pink, and it wasn’t long before Al was
immersed in Pink’s The Sovereignty of God at the recommendation of
friends.
It bothered Al at first to think that God had sovereignly ordained
everything, even having “decreed from all eternity that Judas should
betray the Lord Jesus.”3 Pink explained that “God does not produce the
sinful dispositions of any of His creatures.… He is neither the Author nor
the Approver of sin.”4 Al pondered that idea at length. He was troubled
by the teaching that God’s sovereignty meant that He controlled and
literally caused everything, and yet that man was to blame for the sin God
caused him to commit. The pastor explained that some things “couldn’t
be reconciled.”
The more Al read, the more the whole matter of man’s will became an
enigma. He was especially puzzled by seemingly contradictory statements
on that subject by a number of Calvinist authors. Pink, for example,
rejected the very idea of free will,5 a concept that he denounced
repeatedly. Yet in order to encourage the study of “the deeper things of
God [i.e., Calvinism],” he declared, “it is still true that ‘Where there’s a
will, there’s a way’....”6 If God had to make the elect willing to be saved
because they had no will, why did their will have any role to play? Such
questions bothered Al only briefly and were soon forgotten in the
excitement of discovering so much about the Reformation and the creeds
it had produced, which he had never known.
Growing Confusion
In order to share his new “faith” with Jan, and to bring her along this
inspiring path of learning with him, Al immersed himself in a detailed
study of each of the five points of TULIP. And that turned out to be the start
of a downward slide in his faith. Beginning with a deepening
understanding of the doctrine of Total Depravity, doubts began to disturb
the security Al had once known in Christ. How could he be sure he was
truly saved? After all, as a totally depraved person he couldn’t possibly
have believed in Christ with saving faith unless God had first sovereignly
regenerated him. Looking back on his conversion, Al tried to assure
himself that that was what had actually happened, even though he didn’t
remember it that way.
 Well, of course, he must have been sovereignly regenerated. That was
the only way he could have believed the gospel. All the Calvinists were
very firm on that point. But how could he be sure? After all, regeneration
had to happen without his knowledge and before he believed the gospel
and was saved. How could he be certain that something he wasn’t even
aware of when it happened had actually occurred?
If Christ’s promise in John 3:16 “that whosoever believeth in him
should not perish, but have everlasting life” was a genuine offer to the
entire world (as he had once thought but no longer believed), then he
could have assurance by simply believing. But if “whosoever” really
meant “the elect” and if salvation was restricted to them, his only
assurance would be in knowing he was among the elect. Was he or wasn’t
He? That question began to trouble him day and night. He couldn’t
escape the fear this uncertainty aroused.
First John 5:10–13 (“These things have I written unto you that believe
on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal
life...”) had once given him great comfort. He had often used the passage
to lead others to confident assurance in Christ. Now, however, with his
new understanding, Al was convinced that John was writing to the elect;
and if he wasn’t really one of the elect, then his believing would be in
vain.
Yet all through this epistle, over and over again, it was “believe and
have eternal life”—and nothing about being one of the elect. Al took that
problem to the pastor, who explained that John was writing to the elect,
so he didn’t need to keep reminding them of who they were. Of course.
Al could not, however, escape a host of questions that kept coming
back to haunt him. The Bible clearly said that faith came by hearing the
Word of God, and one certainly couldn’t hear the Word without faith to
believe. But the totally depraved couldn’t have faith until they were
regenerated and given that faith from God. Yet one had to have faith to
believe the gospel in order to be saved. So how could one be regenerated
before believing and being saved? It was an impossible conundrum.
What “Regeneration” Was This?
There was a brief and heated dispute among his Calvinist friends at the
men’s Bible study group when Al raised this troubling question. Various
Calvinist authors were consulted, along with the Geneva Study Bible,
which they all read daily, devouring the notes. There was no question: it
was not just a consensus among Calvinist authorities, but unanimous, that
regeneration had to precede faith. Before the evening was over, Al was
accused of having Arminian tendencies, which he denied, of course, but
remained uncertain.
Al became convinced that his doubts had to be an attack from Satan.
Could this be what Paul wrote about in Ephesians 6? Al turned there and
only became more bewildered when he came to these words: “Above all,
taking the shield of faith, wherewith ye shall be able to quench all the
fiery darts of the wicked” (Ephesians 6:16). Taking the shield of faith?
Why would taking be necessary if faith were a gift from God, sovereignly
bestowed?
There was no unanimity in the discussion group when this question
came up a few days later. Al thought that taking the shield of faith
indicated that faith must involve volition on man’s part. Some argued that
this was written to believers, and that of course we had responsibility to
believe after we were regenerated.
“But isn’t it only after we’ve been sovereignly regenerated that God
gives us the faith to believe?” asked Al. “Why is that initial faith without
volition, but afterwards it’s different? Wouldn’t a faith given sovereignly
by God be better than a faith for which we are responsible?”
The lengthy discussion that evening ended without a consensus or
further accusations about “an Arminian tendency.” Now Al was not the
only one having doubts.
A Victim of Subtle Deception?
Al went back over some of the Calvinist authors he had earlier found
so helpful. Now their words only added to his confusion and doubts about
his own salvation. Some emphasized Total Depravity to such an extent
that the unsaved were incapable of even understanding the gospel.
Others, however, like James White, said that the non-elect could
understand it but not believe it unto salvation, without the faith God
gives. Most agreed that the unregenerate could not believe unto
salvation. White made that as clear as anyone:
It is not the Reformed position that spiritual death means “the elimination of all
human ability to understand or respond to God.” Unregenerate man is...simply
incapable [of] submit[ting] himself to that gospel.7

Reading those words really bothered Al. If while remaining a spiritually

dead lost soul he could have understood the gospel, then what he’d
thought was faith could have been purely humanistic consent without
salvation! How would he know the difference? He had been sure he had
understood the gospel and had believed it. But if he had only understood
it as a spiritually dead and totally depraved sinner, and not as one who
had been regenerated and given faith by God, he would still be lost!
Once happy and fruitful in the Lord, now Al could no longer be certain
that his repentance and what he had thought was faith in Christ for
salvation had not been purely human emotions. Indeed, that had to be
the case unless God had first regenerated him without any act of faith on
his part. But that wasn’t how he remembered it happening, and he
couldn’t talk himself into pretending that he had been regenerated prior
to what he had always referred to as his conversion.
The Impact of “Unconditional Election”
Al realized that if he had been elected unto salvation, it could only
have been unconditionally and thus completely apart from any “faith” he
could have placed in Christ. That faith had to be given to him after he was
saved and could not have involved any volitional belief on his part. But
that didn’t fit what he remembered.
Looking back on what he had once thought was a clear memory of
responding to the gospel by simply believing in Christ, his confusion only
grew. He remembered the night he was saved (or thought he got saved).
It was as if a light had gone on when the pastor who had led him to Christ
quoted Romans 1:16: “For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it
is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth.” A lifetime
of sacraments, confession, penance, prayers to Mary, and wearing of
medals and scapulars, suddenly was revealed as useless. The gospel was
God’s means of saving souls, and all he had to do was believe. He had
believed the gospel, knew he was saved, and never had a doubt about his
salvation for eight happy years.
Al had even presented that same gospel to others, believing it was
God’s power unto salvation if they would but believe. Now he knew that
he had been spreading an Arminian lie, which had deceived him into
imagining he was saved. And to think that he had deceived others as well!
Of course, if they were among the elect, they were saved—and if not,
they were doomed, no matter what they believed.
How mistaken he had been to imagine that the gospel was an offer to
him. What presumption on his part at the time! That was the tragic result
of hearing the gospel from a non-Calvinist—and now he was paying the
price. So were those to whom he had passed this misunderstanding in the
days when he had been under the delusion that “whosoever believeth in
him should not perish” meant salvation was an offer to be accepted by
anyone who was willing under the conviction of the Holy Spirit.
His pastor tried to encourage Al to believe that his doubts were good—
that they helped him obey Peter’s admonition to “[G]ive diligence to
make your calling and election sure: for if ye do these things, ye shall
never fall...” (2 Peter 1:10).
“But how can I make an election ‘sure’ that I don’t have, if I’m not one
of the elect?” Al asked in desperation.
“I’ve seen your works, Al,” came the reassuring response. “There are
several in our church that you led to Christ.”
“Led to Christ? Isn’t that an Arminian idea?” Al blurted out in despair.
“What do you mean, led to Christ! The elect don’t need to be led to Christ
but are sovereignly regenerated without any understanding or faith on
their part—and the non-elect can’t be led to Christ. How could you have
offered me the gift of salvation through the gospel without knowing I was
one of the elect?”
“I wasn’t a Calvinist then,” replied the pastor awkwardly. “Anyway,
since we don’t know who the elect are, we preach the gospel to all and
leave it to the Lord.”
“If no one knows who the elect are,” demanded Al earnestly, “then
how can I know I’m one of the elect? That’s what’s bothering me! Peter
says to make our election sure, but how can I do that when I can’t be sure
I’m elected?”
“You’ve got the fruits…,”the pastor began, but Al looked at his watch,
muttered an excuse and headed for the door, shaking his head in
confusion.
“Limited Atonement” Adds to His Despair
The third point of Calvinism, Limited Atonement, further undermined
the simple faith Al had once had in Christ. At the moment when he had
thought he got saved, he had believed that Christ died “for all...for the
ungodly...for sinners...for every man,” and thus for him. He had thought
that Christ’s sacrifice on the cross was the propitiation “for the sins of the
whole world” and thus it had paid the penalty for his sins. How easily he
had been deceived by an Arminian delusion!
It had finally become the “truth” to Al that Christ’s blood was shed for
only the elect; otherwise, some of it would have been wasted. Multitudes
were already in hell before Christ died. Certainly His blood was not shed
for them! How could it have been?
Al wondered how he could ever have dared to imagine that Christ had
died for him! The very idea must have come from his own pride. Honesty
forced Al to admit that he’d never had any proof that he was one of the
elect for whom Christ had died. Nor could he imagine how he could ever
hope to find such proof.
Al had offered the “good news” of the gospel to friends and relatives
and acquaintances. He had told many, with great zeal and confidence,
“Christ died for you! How can you reject Him when you realize that He
loves you so much that He came all the way from heaven to pay the full
penalty for your sins so that He could rescue you from hell? If you were
the only person on earth, Christ would have died for you!”
Now Al trembled to think how many he had deceived. But what could
he do about it? He had no way of knowing which ones were not part of
the elect. And even if he did, what would be the point of telling them they
had a false faith? They were predestined to eternal torment whether they
“believed” in Christ or not.
Leading others to Christ had once given Al great joy and satisfaction,
knowing he would meet them in heaven. Now he knew that the gospel he
had preached was a lie that had led many astray, imagining that Christ
had died for them. How many he had deceived, he couldn’t know, but at
least they weren’t any worse off than before.
Al was now in great despair not only for himself but also for those
whom he surely had led astray. Formerly, it had brought him great joy
that he had become fruitful for Christ in winning a number of people to
his Lord. Now he knows there is no such thing as “winning people to
Christ.” It is a delusion of human pride to think that anyone can say “yes”
or “no” to God! Whether one will be saved or lost has all been decided by
God an eternity ago, and nothing can change that fact. John Piper waxed
so enthusiastic about God’s sovereignty and the great comfort and joy it
brought; Al had rejoiced over his books. Now God’s sovereignty—at least
His predestining just the elect to heaven—brought only despair to Al.
“Irresistible Grace”—the Final Blow
The fourth point, Irresistible Grace, had once brought great comfort.
Learning that even the faith to believe was all of God had at first seemed
so humbling. Now it troubled him deeply. Looking back on his
“conversion” as he remembered it, Al could find nothing “irresistible”
about his salvation.
Leading up to his “conversion,” he had agonizingly weighed the choice
between a few more years of sinful enjoyment, or eternal bliss with
Christ. In fact, he had procrastinated after he knew the gospel. Then an
auto “accident,” which the doctors said he shouldn’t have survived,
became what he had often referred to thereafter as his “wake-up call.” In
the hospital, as the man who was now his pastor had presented the
gospel, Al had “given his heart to the Lord,” as he had heard it so often
expressed. He had believed on Christ and knew he had passed from death
to life because of Christ’s promise.
That was then—but this was now. Now he knew it all had been a
fleshly or even satanic delusion. Yes, he had been absolutely convinced
that the gospel was true, and he knew he needed a Savior. He had
believed with all his heart that only through Christ’s having paid the
penalty for his sins could he be saved from God’s just judgment. But now
he knew that even those who were doomed for eternity could come to
such rational conclusions and think they had believed in Christ.
 No, he had no proof that Christ had died for him—that he was one of
the elect. Even less did he have any indication that he had been drawn to
Christ by the Father’s “irresistible grace.” Even now he wanted to believe,
wanted to be saved. He felt that he loved Christ for having died in his
place. But it had to be wishful thinking of a totally depraved mind,
because he could not identify any time when he could have been
sovereignly regenerated prior to what he had thought was his conversion.
It simply hadn’t happened—he was now sure of that!
Turning to Calvin for Help
That he had read some though not all of that imposing and
intellectually challenging volume, Calvin’s Institutes of the Christian
Religion, had once given Al considerable pride. One of the things that had
first attracted him to Calvinism was the fact that so many of its adherents
seemed to be more intelligent than ordinary Christians. They especially
gave that impression when they talked about election. He enjoyed the
company of the elect, and there was an exhilarating sense of camaraderie
in knowing that others didn’t understand the truth discovered by
Augustine and passed on to Calvin.
Now he turned to the Institutes for comfort, hoping that Calvin would
offer something to quell his rising doubts. Instead, he was horrified. The
answers Calvin gave to his questions seemed to credit God with working
an almost fiendish deception upon the reprobate, “enlightening some
with a present sense of grace, which afterwards proves evanescent.”8 Al
was shocked that God would intentionally deceive sincere seekers, and
wondered why he hadn’t noticed such statements before. (Of course,
there were no “sincere seekers”—that idea was just another Satanic
delusion.)
The deception Calvin attributed to God sounded almost diabolical,
leaving Al severely shaken: “There is nothing to prevent his [God’s] giving
some a slight knowledge of his gospel, and imbuing others
thoroughly...the light which glimmers in the reprobate is afterward
quenched....”9
So the totally depraved, dead-in-trespasses-and-sins moral corpses are
not completely “dead” but able to have “a slight knowledge” of the
gospel, a light God gives them that glimmers and then is quenched, while
unable to understand enough to be saved! That was diabolical. Yet it rang
true to his own experience. How else could he explain that he had once
been so sure of his salvation but was now in despair?
Al desperately searched the Bible but could not find any statement
about such a difference between the elect and non-elect, especially that
in order to deceive them, a false light was given to those whom God had
predestined to damnation. Wasn’t Satan the one who deceived those
who didn’t believe, to blind them to the light of the gospel? He read John
1:9 again. It seemed to say that Jesus Christ was “the true Light, which
lighteth every man that cometh into the world.” He searched Pink’s The
Sovereignty of God, White’s The Potter’s Freedom, Piper’s The
Justification of God, and the works of other Calvinist authors, but none of
them addressed this important verse. Why was it avoided? At last he
found where Schreiner dealt with it in detail. Al was excited to read, “This
illumination...makes it possible for men and women to choose
salvation.”10 Reading on, however, enthusiasm turned to despair.
Schreiner was giving John Wesley’s view and went on to debunk it. The
light of Christ shines upon all men only to reveal “the moral and spiritual
state” of each heart, not to reveal Christ to them.11 That certainly agreed
with Calvin.
It seemed that Calvin was saying that God not only predestined
multitudes to eternal doom and there was nothing they could do about it,
but He deliberately deceived some of them into imagining that they were
truly saved when they weren’t! Al could not remember anything in the
Bible that would support such doctrine, and noticed that Calvin didn’t
give any biblical references to back up what he said. With horror, Al read
what now seemed to be sadistic reasoning:
[E]xperience shows that the reprobate are sometimes affected in a way similar to
the elect, that even in their own judgment there is no difference between them....
Not that they truly perceive the power of spiritual grace and the sure light of faith;
but the Lord the better to convict them, and leave them without excuse, instills
into their minds such a sense of his goodness as can be felt without the Spirit of
adoption.

Still…the reprobate believe God to be propitious to them, inasmuch as they accept

the gift of reconciliation, though confusedly and without due discernment.... Nor
do I even deny that God illumines their minds to this extent, that they recognize
his grace; but that conviction he distinguishes from the peculiar testimony which
he gives to his elect in this respect, that the reprobate never obtain to the full
result or to fruition. When he shows himself propitious to them, it is not as if he
had truly rescued them from death, and taken them under his protection. He only
gives them a manifestation of his present mercy. In the elect alone he implants the
living root of faith, so that they persevere even to the end.12

What “God” Is This!

What could Calvin possibly have meant by “present mercy”? No matter
how “merciful” God was to these poor souls in this life, could it be called
“mercy” at all if its ultimate end was destruction? Was it not cynical to
call temporary favor “mercy” upon those predestined for eternal
damnation? Who could believe in such a God! Al found himself wrestling
with thoughts of atheism and only with great effort suppressed such
rebellion.
Luther, too, in The Bondage of the Will, seemed to present a “God”
who was just as sadistic, “deservedly taunting and mocking”13 the lost by
calling upon them to come to Christ when they couldn’t without the help
He refused to give them! It is one thing to mock those who, having been
given a genuine choice, have willfully rejected salvation and have
persisted in their attempt to dethrone God. It is something else for
Calvin’s and Luther’s God, having created man without the possibility of
repenting and believing the gospel, then to mock him in the doom to
which he has been predestined.
Al could not equate such deceit with the loving, gracious, merciful God
of the Bible. But this was the God of Augustine, the premier “saint” of
Roman Catholicism, to whom not only Calvin and Luther looked as their
mentor but whom so many leading evangelicals praised highly. He was
further shaken by this statement in a book he was reading: “The
Reformation was essentially a revival of Augustinianism and through it
evangelical Christianity again came into its own.”14 To learn that
Augustine was the founder of Calvinism and “evangelical Christianity”
shook him, as a former Catholic, to the core.
What was the truth after all?
Searching for assurance, Al found where Calvin explained that his
teaching that some are predestined to salvation and others to destruction
was “the only sure ground of confidence [that one was truly saved],” a
confidence that only the elect possess.15 Al thought and prayed about
that, but could not see how the belief that God had predestined some to
heaven and others to hell could give anyone confidence that he was
chosen for heaven. Was he blind, totally reprobate, and unable to see the
truth?
His inability to make sense of Calvin seemed to be the final
confirmation that he was eternally lost without any hope. The only
encouragement he received during those dark days came from the
Westminster Confession: “True believers may have the assurance of their
salvation divers ways shaken, diminished, and intermitted...by God’s
withdrawing the light of his countenance, and suffering even such as fear
him to walk in darkness and to have no light....”16 That seemed to bring a
glimmer of renewed hope, but he couldn’t find the biblical basis for true
believers lacking the very assurance that the Bible promises to simple
faith.
 Then a friend gave him a book that he said had resolved all of his
questions. It was The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination by Loraine
Boettner. The back cover declared it to be “One of the most thorough and
convincing statements on predestination to have appeared in any
language...the authoritative work in this field.”17 Al began to read it with
high hopes. Instead, the book shook him further. The recommendation by
Christianity Today that “The chapter on Calvinism in history will prove
illuminating to many”18 caused him to read that part first.
Al was immediately troubled by Boettner’s admission that early
Christian leaders would have rejected Calvinism’s view of predestination
and that “This cardinal truth of Christianity was first clearly seen by
Augustine....”19 He knew very well that Augustine was responsible for
most of Catholicism’s doctrines and practices. A recent newspaper article
told that the Pope and the Roman Catholic Church had just held some
kind of commemorative observance in which this “Saint” had been hailed
as the “Doctor of the Church.” How could Calvinism be a “cardinal truth
of Christianity” if for centuries Christian leaders believed the opposite,
until Augustine, the greatest Roman Catholic, “discovered” it?
Is There No Way of Escape?
During the nearly twenty-five years that he had been a Catholic, Al had
trusted the Church and its sacraments for his eternal destiny. Of course,
under that system of works, rituals, medals, scapulars, and intervention
of the “saints,” he never could be sure he was saved. The longing for
assurance had been a key factor in causing him even to consider listening
to what he had been taught from childhood were Protestant heresies.
And now, in his despair, he considered turning back to Rome, even
though he knew he’d find even less assurance there than in Calvinism. His
former Church had taught him that one never could be sure of getting to
heaven; in fact, it was a sin to claim such confidence. He vaguely
remembered the anathema pronounced by the Council of Trent upon
those who commit the sin of presumption by saying they know they are
saved and will never be lost.
Now Al understood at last why Cardinal O’Connor declared:
Church teaching is that I don’t know, at any given moment, what my eternal future
will be. I can hope, pray, do my very best—but I still don’t know. Pope John Paul II
doesn’t know absolutely that he will go to heaven, nor does Mother Teresa of
Calcutta, unless either has had a special divine revelation.20

That was what he needed—a special revelation from God! How else
could one be certain, either as a Catholic or as a Calvinist, of being
predestined to persevere to the end? Paul had exhorted the Corinthians,
“Examine yourselves, whether ye be in the faith; prove your own selves”
(2 Corinthians 13:5). Al had thought that was a call to examine his heart
to make certain that his faith in Christ was sincere and being lived out in
his life through the guidance and empowering of God: “...work out your
own salvation with fear and trembling. For it is God which worketh in you
both to will and to do of his good pleasure” (Philippians 2:12–13).
But a Calvinist author whom he had read argued from that Scripture,
“‘It is God who works in you both to will and do.’ If this is true after
conversion, when I am made free in Christ, it must be even more so
before conversion when I am a slave to sin.”21 No further proof was
needed of sovereign election. It is God who does all. Then what good
would self-examination do? It would never reveal whether one was
among the elect. He needed a special revelation from God—but how long
must he wait to know it would never come?
“Hyper-Calvinism?” What’s That?
Al took his confusion back to his pastor again. They had a long talk,
which seemed to get nowhere. The pastor could see that Al was near
despair. Putting his hand on Al’s shoulder, he suggested, “Let’s get on our
knees and pray about this, Al.”
 Both of them prayed earnestly that God would clear away all doubts
and confusion by His sovereign grace. As they rose from their knees, the
pastor went to a bookshelf, pulled out a book, and handed it to Al. It was
a well-worn copy of John MacArthur Jr.’s fairly new book, The Love of
God.
“Don’t rush—give it back when you’ve finished it,” he told Al. “I think
you’ve fallen into ‘hyper-Calvinism.’ This will help.”
“Hyper-Calvinism? What do you mean?”
“Well, sometimes it’s hard to tell the difference. I guess I’m to blame
for leading you into it. I’ve emphasized Unconditional Election and
Limited Atonement—maybe a little too much—without enough of God’s
love for the world....”
“God’s love for the world? What are you talking about? You can’t mean
everybody...!”
“Well, that’s the difference between hyper-Calvinism and the more
moderate position that Dr. MacArthur takes in this book. God really does
love everybody, and John 3:16 pretty much means what we all used to
think it meant....”
“Pretty much...?”
“Well, God does want everybody to be saved....”
“What are you saying?” Al interrupted sharply. “You sound like an
Arminian! You know Christ did not die for everybody! Is that what
MacArthur says?”
“Of course not! You know he affirms Limited Atonement. Still...he
shows conclusively that, contrary to hyper-Calvinism, God has a sincere
desire for everyone to be saved...!”
“A sincere desire to save those He has predestined to the Lake of
Fire...? That’s not what you taught me and it doesn’t make sense. Are you
pulling my leg?”
“Please. MacArthur proves that God genuinely loves even the
reprobate...but with a different kind of love than He has for the elect.”
“Different kind of love? Isn’t love of any kind still love?”
“Well, there are different kinds of love...J. I. Packer says the same, and
so does Piper...love for wife, friend, neighbor, even enemy.... MacArthur
frankly admits that ‘the universal love of God is hard to reconcile with the
doctrine of election....’”22
“Universal love...? Now you are pulling my leg!”
“Look, just take this book and read it carefully. It will answer your
questions.…”
Where’s the Difference?
The next evening after supper, instead of going to the men’s Bible
study that lately didn’t seem to be getting anywhere, Al stayed home and
began reading the new book with high hopes. The more he read, the
more confused he became.
First of all, what MacArthur—and now apparently his pastor—
identified as hyper-Calvinism sounded to Al like the very Calvinism he had
been taught by the pastor and had learned from books he’d been reading
by leading Calvinist authors—and that included Calvin himself. Certainly
both moderate and hyper-Calvinists embraced all five points, including
limited atonement. Then what was the difference?
Al finally concluded that “hypers” denied that God loves everyone. To
them, “For God so loved the world” didn’t mean every person “without
exception, but without distinction” (a mystifying phrase he now realized
he’d been rather proud to interject into discussions with non-Calvinists)—
all kinds of people that comprised the elect, but not every individual in
every kind. But in this book, MacArthur claimed that God loved everybody
—even the reprobate—and that this was what classic Calvinists had
always believed: “The fact that some sinners are not elected to salvation
is no proof that God’s attitude toward them is utterly devoid of sincere
love.... He loves the elect in a special way reserved only for them. But that
does not make His love for the rest of humanity any less real.”23
So God has (or had) a real love for those He never intended to save?
“What nonsense!” Al muttered, beginning to feel angry. “Why not admit
the truth?”
As he read, Al highlighted all the places in the book where it seemed to
him that MacArthur contradicted himself, most of which the pastor
himself had already highlighted, though apparently in approval. Al
showed the pastor the contradictions the next time they got together for
their weekly discipleship session.
“I think MacArthur is playing a semantic game,” complained Al. “He
believes the same thing the so-called hyper-Calvinists believe, but he isn’t
as honest about admitting it! He covers it up with talk about God loving
everyone, but that traps him in serious contradictions!”
“How can you say that, Al? He spends an entire book showing from
Scripture that God loves all mankind....”
“Yes, and that’s the problem! Loves everyone? But is it really love?
Look here: ‘He loves the elect in a special way reserved only for them. But
that does not make His love for the rest of humanity any less real.”24
“Yes, that’s what I believe. So...?”
“Is it real love to predestine someone to eternal torment who could
have been saved?”
“Well, God isn’t under any obligation to love everyone alike,”
protested the pastor. “He must be as free as we are to love different
people in different ways!”
“It’s not a question of obligation,” persisted Al. “I didn’t ask whether
God was obligated to love everyone. Of course, He isn’t—not by any law.
He makes the laws. But isn’t love His very essence? He is love. So His very
nature compels Him to love everyone....”
“But not alike in the same way!” interrupted the pastor. “There are
different kinds of love. My love for my wife and children is different from
my love for my neighbor....”
“I’m not trying to be argumentative. God knows I’d like to get this
settled. I’m to love my neighbor as myself. But forgetting that high
standard...would it be any kind of love for me to set my neighbor’s house
on fire?”
“Of course not,” came the instant and firm reply.
Contradictions...and Double Talk
“Then how can it be love for God to predestine multitudes to the Lake
of Fire for eternity? That’s double talk!”
“No it isn’t. You forget that these are sinners. They deserve it. They
hate God, have rebelled against Him...would tear Him from His throne if
they could...! God has to vindicate His justice.”
“But aren’t all men equally guilty and deserving of eternal
punishment? If God’s justice allowed Him to save the elect, how could it
prevent Him from saving all the rest of mankind? His justice has been
satisfied in Christ—only for the elect, of course. But couldn’t God just as
well have chosen to elect everyone, to have Christ die for all mankind,
and to sovereignly regenerate and provide all with faith to believe?”
“But that wasn’t His plan...” the pastor protested.
 “Plan? That’s the whole point. He could have included all in that plan.
So how is it love for God to exclude any that He could save?”
“That’s exactly what MacArthur explains. Let me see that book.” The
pastor thumbed through it rapidly like someone who had read it several
times. “Look here,” he said at last: “‘Surely His pleading with the lost, His
offers of mercy to the reprobate, and the call of the gospel to all who
hear are all sincere expressions of the heart of a loving God [who]
tenderly calls sinners to turn from their evil ways and live. He offers the
water of life to all (Isaiah 55:1; Revelation 22:17).... Reformed theologians
have always affirmed the love of God for all sinners...because the Father
loves the human race, and wishes that they should not perish.’ Then
MacArthur quotes Calvin, who said the same of John 3:16, that Christ
‘employed the universal term whosoever, both to invite all
indiscriminately to partake of life, and to cut off every excuse from
unbelievers.’”25
Al gave his pastor a long, hard look of disbelief. “That’s more double
talk...and it convinces you? I’ve read the book. I know what MacArthur
says. Turn the page.... Here, let me have it. Look at the end of this quote.
Calvin says, ‘but the elect alone are they whose eyes God opens....’”
“Of course. If God really wanted everyone to be saved then they all
would be. So...?”
“You don’t see the contradiction? God invites everyone to salvation—
including those for whom Christ didn’t die and whom He has already from
a past eternity determined not to save and has predestined to eternal
torment? Surely MacArthur can’t be serious! And you think this makes
sense?
“Just because it seems a contradiction to us...,” the pastor began
lamely, but Al cut him off.
“You know very well,” interrupted Al impatiently, “that you told me
many times that Calvinism teaches that God really doesn’t want everyone
to be saved. He only opens the eyes of the elect! You just said that if He
did, everyone would be saved.
“Come on, Pastor! That’s like issuing a general invitation for everyone
in our church to come to my house for dinner but only telling a select
group where I live and keeping my address secret from the rest. Of
course, my Calvinist friends stick up for me and insist that I really want
everyone to come, even though I make it impossible for most people to
find me. That’s double talk! And it’s like that all through this book! I don’t
know what to believe any more. I want to believe the Bible—but I’ve lost
confidence in it because so many bright men like Sproul, Packer, Piper,
and MacArthur claim to find justification in it for the most blatant
contradictions.”
It wasn’t a pleasant scene. The argument became intense, with the
pastor defending MacArthur, and Al acrimoniously and impatiently
insisting that the contradiction was shamefully obvious and that it formed
the very basis of Calvinism. Finally he apologized to the pastor for
becoming angry. He regretted having started the argument as he left the
church and headed to work.
Stifling a Most Troubling Thought
Al had a difficult time all day trying to keep his mind on his job. Cutting
through the semantic talk about God loving everyone, the truth was that
whatever kind of love Calvinism credited God with toward the non-elect,
it wasn’t genuine enough to really desire their salvation. And that meant
it wasn’t love at all, in spite of MacArthur and Piper writing entire books
to try to prove that “offering” salvation to those whom God has
specifically excluded from salvation is sincere and loving.
It made Al angry every time he thought of the hypocrisy of “moderate”
Calvinists claiming that God sincerely loved those He had predestined to
eternal torment when He could have included them among the elect just
as well as others. Those they criticized as hyper-Calvinists were simply
honest enough to admit the truth. Even if God’s “common grace” gave
the entire world to someone He could have saved but instead consigned
to eternal flames...there was no way to call that love!
Well, this was a general flaw in Calvinism that he had never seen
before. Now it was clear. What “God” was this that the Calvinists of all
kinds believed in? Al could believe in such a God no longer. Was he
becoming an atheist? He knew that couldn’t be right—but the temptation
to reject God altogether took hold of him and was frightening.
After his conversion Al had become a strong believer in the necessity
of apologetics. Reared in Roman Catholic schools, he had been taught
that evolution was true. In university, a debate about evolution between
a Christian geneticist and a professor in the same field first started him on
an investigation that ultimately played a vital role in his conversion to
Christ. He had carefully weighed a great deal of evidence and found that
it all pointed to the validity of the Bible and Christianity.
As a Calvinist, however, he had lost his interest in apologetics. Some of
his Calvinist friends from the study group were heavily into apologetics—
but what was the point? The elect needed no evidence or persuasion, and
it would do the non-elect no good. For a time, he felt somewhat confused
and even guilty over his change of mind, but that dissipated when a
fellow Calvinist (who had been in it longer than he) pointed out from
Calvin’s Institutes where such an attitude was justified.
Calvin’s Weakness as an Apologist
It would, of course, be consistent with Calvinism to view evidence and
reason as of little if any value in establishing faith. After all, faith is a gift
of God given only to the elect after their regeneration. Indeed, why
should a Calvinist be concerned (though Al noted that many,
inconsistently, were) to offer evidence to the ungodly for the existence of
God, and that the Bible is true in every word? The totally depraved
cannot be swayed by truth, while the elect don’t need such persuasion—
since they are sovereignly without any faith regenerated in order to cause
them to believe—and evidence has nothing to do with that fact. No
wonder Calvin had so little use for evidence and proof:
The prophets and apostles...dwell [not] on reasons; but they appeal to the sacred
name of God, in order that the whole world may be compelled to submission.... If,
then, we would...save [ourselves] from...uncertainty, from wavering, and even
stumbling...our conviction of the truth of Scripture must be derived from a higher
source than human conjectures…namely, the secret testimony of the Spirit.... It is
preposterous to attempt, by discussion, to rear up a full faith in Scripture....

Profane men...insist to have it proved by reason that Moses and the prophets
were divinely inspired. But I answer, that the testimony of the Spirit is superior to
reason. For as God alone can properly bear witness to his own words, so these
words will not obtain full credit in the hearts of men, until they are sealed by the
inward testimony of the Spirit.... Let it therefore be held as fixed, that...scripture,
carrying its own evidence along with it, deigns not to submit to proofs and
arguments, but owes the full conviction with which we ought to receive it to the
testimony of the Spirit.... We ask not for proofs or probabilities.…

Such, then, is a conviction which asks not for reasons; such, a knowledge which
accords with the highest reason, namely, knowledge in which the mind rests more
firmly and securely than in any reasons...the conviction which revelation from
heaven alone can produce...the only true faith is that which the Spirit of God seals
on our hearts....

This singular privilege God bestows on his elect only, whom he separates from the
rest of mankind...if at any time, then, we are troubled at the small number of
those who believe, let us...call to mind that none comprehend the mysteries of
God save those to whom it is given.26

It seemed biblical and reasonable to Al that the subjective witness of

the Holy Spirit was supported by objective proof. The Bible is filled with
evidence. The prophets, Apostles, and Christ himself applied such proof
to persuade unbelievers to believe in God and to strengthen the faith of
believers. Surely, solid proof ought to be used in presenting the gospel
and in reinforcing the assurance of believers.
 But what was the point, if the elect alone are given saving faith and
that without any evidence but as a result of sovereign regeneration? Then
why did Paul and the apostles, following Christ’s example, devote
themselves to proving the gospel (Acts 1:3; 9:22, 29; 10:43; 13:26-41;
17:2-3, 17-31; 18:9-11, 28, etc.)?
Al realized that Muslims could testify to most of what Calvin said about
the inner witness of the Spirit. They need no proof, because they have an
inner conviction that Allah inspired Muhammad. Internal and external
evidence, however, reveals that the Qur’an is not true and that
Muhammad was a false prophet. Mormons, too, are able to hold fast to
their “faith” in spite of the total lack of evidence for the Book of Mormon
(indeed, much evidence refutes it, such as the video DNA vs. The Book of
Mormon), because its validity was supposedly verified to them by God
through a “burning in the bosom.” Such is the secret “faith” of every
convinced cult member.
Having belittled proofs, Calvin did go on to offer some, but they were
generally weak and hardly sufficient to convince an intelligent skeptic.
They involved the majesty of language and sublime truths set forth in
Scripture more than evidences for its inspiration. He did touch briefly on a
few prophecies, but they were of the kind which were fulfilled in short
order, such as the restoration of the children of Israel under Cyrus. The
most powerful prophecies fulfilled in Israel throughout history and in the
coming of her Messiah were almost completely neglected—the former,
no doubt, because of the rejection of Israel as God’s people, which Luther
and Calvin carried over from their Catholicism.
Calvin did spend several chapters speaking of the evidences that God
exists, that the Bible is the Word of God, and that God is the only true
God, in contrast to the false gods of the heathen. But why do this if it isn’t
important? The elect surely don’t need any proof. Moreover, the proofs
he offered were weak and superficial and would carry little weight with
any intelligent skeptic. So many others have written apologetics that are
far superior to Calvin’s that he wasted his time.
We do not minimize the witness of the Holy Spirit within the believer.
However, the Bible offers proof upon proof, as did the Apostles and
prophets. We have the prophecies fulfilled, the historical evidence, and
the scientific and logical evidence. These are important in establishing the
Word of God and the gospel it contains as the truth of God. Paul told
Titus that an elder should “be able by sound doctrine both to exhort and
to convince the gainsayers” (Titus 1:9).
Al had not entirely lost his interest in apologetics, but it seemed of
little value in light of his new understanding. Furthermore, he found no
hope of apologetics ever being able to prove that he was one of the elect.
In fact, there was no way that apologetics could establish the truth of
election—much less determine the identity of the elect. That realization
troubled him greatly.

1. William MacDonald to Dave Hunt (marginal note in review copy). On file.
2. Bruce Milne, Know the Truth (Downer’s Grove, IL: InterVarsity, n. d.), 66.
3. Arthur W. Pink, The Sovereignty of God (Grand Rapids,MI: Baker Book House, 4th ed.,
2nd prtg. 1986), 155.
4. Ibid., 156.
5. Ibid., 1.
6. Pink, foreword to 1st ed. 1918, Sovereignty.
7. James R. White, The Potter’s Freedom (Amityville, NY: Calvary Press Publishing, 2000),
100–101.
8. John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, trans. Henry Beveridge (Grand Rapids,
MI: Wm. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1998 ed.), III: ii, 11.
9. Ibid., III: ii, 12.
10. Thomas R. Schreiner, “Does Scripture Teach Prevenient Grace in the Wesleyan Sense,” in
 Still Sovereign, 237.
11. Ibid., 240.
12. Calvin, Institutes, III: ii, 11–12.
13. Martin Luther, The Bondage of the Will, trans. J. I. Packer and O. R. Johnston (Grand
Rapids, MI: Fleming H. Revell, 1957, 11th prtg. 1999), 153.
14. Loraine Boettner, The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian
and Reformed Publishing Co., 1932), 367.
15. Calvin, Institutes, III: xxi, 1.
16. Westminster Confession of Faith (London: n. p., 1643), XVIII: iv.
17. Boettner, Reformed, back cover.
18. Ibid.
19. Boettner, Reformed, 365.
20. Sam Howe Verhovek, “Cardinal Defends a Jailed Bishop Who Warned Cuomo on
Abortion,” The New York Times, February 1, 1990, A1, B4.
21. Wm. Oosterman, “Take a Long Look at the Doctrine of Election” (Ottawa, Canada: The
Lord’s Library Publications, n. d.), 7. Available from Westboro Baptist Church, Ottawa.
22. John MacArthur, The Love of God (Dallas, TX: Word Publishing, 1996), 110.
23. Ibid., 14-16.
24. Ibid., 16.
25. Ibid., 17-18.
26. Calvin, Institutes, 71–73.
31—Resting in God’s Love
THE MORE DEEPLY Al studied the subject of assurance, the more
confused he became at the frequent contradictions among Calvinists. He
read where John MacArthur said that “those whose faith is genuine will
prove their salvation is secure by persevering to the end in the way of
righteousness.”1 But Joseph Dillow, in a book that had been highly
recommended to him by his pastor as giving the clearest word on
assurance of salvation, criticized MacArthur and (with many quotations
from Calvin to support him) declared that “Saving faith in Calvin and in
the New Testament is a passive thing located in the mind.”2 In that case,
it would be independent of any works.
Calvin argued that “If we are in communion with Christ, we have proof
sufficiently clear and strong that we are written in the Book of Life.”3 But
considering the deceitfulness of every human heart, how could we
possibly be sure that we were in communion with Christ—and what
about all the other things Calvin said about false assurance in
contradiction to this statement? Al was now exactly where Calvin had said
he would be: “All who do not know that they are the peculiar people of
God must be wretched from perpetual trepidation.”4 So his wretchedness
was, after all, to be endless?
Al’s confusion only grew (but with it a glimmer of hope) when he read
the admission from Gerstner that those who think they have full
assurance that they are saved “ground themselves in the faulty
definitions of saving faith which we received from the first Reformers.
They...defined saving faith as a belief that ‘Christ has saved me,’ making
the assurance of hope its necessary essence. Now, the later
Reformers...have subjected this view to searching examination, and
rejected it (as does the Westminster Assembly) on scriptural grounds.”5
That could only mean that Al’s former assurance of salvation had actually
been in agreement with the early Reformers, and it was the later ones
who retreated from that position! Whom should he believe—and why
such disagreement among Calvinists?
Al wondered how he had missed the fact that so many Calvinists
seemed to insist that assurance was impossible. Kenneth Gentry wrote,
“Assurance is subjective.... Dabney rightfully notes that [absolute
assurance] requires a revelation beyond the Scripture because the Bible
does not specifically speak to the individual in question. Nowhere in the
Bible do we learn...that Ken Gentry is among the elect.”6 Al was badly
shaken. From Gentry’s article and similar statements from other leading
Calvinists, was he to conclude that Calvinism actually opposed the
assurance he was seeking? That seemed to be what Walter Chantry was
saying:
Few seem to appreciate the doubts of professing Christians who question whether
they have been born again. They have no doubt that God will keep His promises
but they wonder whether they have properly fulfilled the conditions for being
heirs to those promises.... They are asking a legitimate question, “Have we
believed and repented? Are we the recipients of God’s grace...?” Since we read of
self-deceived hypocrites like Judas, it is an imperative question. “What must I do to
be saved?” is an altogether different question from, “How do I know I’ve done
that?” You can answer the first confidently. Only the Spirit may answer the last
with certainty.7

Al was not only confused but also deeply troubled by the very
selectiveness of leading Calvinist apologists, which he began to notice and
which we have documented in earlier chapters. In his zeal to deny that
volition had anything to do with faith, and to show that it was entirely a
mental attitude produced by the Holy Spirit without man’s will, Dillow
cited Ephesians 6:23 (“Peace be to the brethren, and love with faith, from
God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ”)8 but neglected to mention
6:16 (“Above all, taking the shield of faith...”). Since “taking” surely was
something we must do, so believing must be our responsibility as well.
But that contradicted the very sovereignty Dillow was declaring. No
wonder he hadn’t mentioned this verse!
Al found little comfort from his Calvinist friends. They had their own
doubts, which they generally denied, only admitting them in rare
moments of candor. It was all sovereignty with no part for man to play at
all—except that one had to persevere to the end and demonstrate it in
one’s life. And Al knew he was failing that test.
A friend had given Al an article by R. C. Sproul titled “Assurance of
Salvation.” Al had read it eagerly, hoping for help, only to come across
this troubling statement: “There are people in this world who are not
saved, but who are convinced that they are....”9
That seemed to describe the very false assurance he once had. Now he
knew better. The more he researched, the more convinced he became
that assurance of heaven was beyond his reach. And to his surprise, Al
was discovering that uncertainty of salvation was rather common among
Calvinists. A statement by I. Howard Marshall seemed to go right through
his heart, because it was so true of his own situation: “Whoever said, ‘the
Calvinist knows that he cannot fall from salvation but does not know
whether he has got it,’ had it summed up nicely.”10 Was Calvinism itself,
then, the root of his doubts?
The more Al read, the more confused he became. Dillow went on and
on about the faith that brings assurance11 until it became far too complex
theologically for the Philippian jailor to have known what Paul meant
when he said, “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved”
(Acts 16:31). But could it really be as simple as Paul’s bare statement?
The Central Issue: God’s Love
Al’s troubled countenance and increasing moodiness finally provoked
Jan to break her silence. “Let me get this straight,” she began. “The God
you now believe in—”
“What do you mean, ‘the God I now believe in’?” Al interjected testily.
“He’s the same God I always believed in and the One you believe in too!”
“Really? I listen carefully to Pastor Jim...and I’m not the only one with
the same concerns. The God of the Bible that I believe in (and you used
to) loves the whole world and wants everyone saved. He gives us all the
right to choose—so it’s not His doing if anyone goes to hell....”
“That’s your interpretation,” interrupted Al. He couldn’t let Jan know
his doubts.
“Let me finish, please...? Your new God gives no one a choice. He
regenerates certain elect ones against their will, and—”
“That’s not true!” Al shot back quickly. “He makes us willing by
changing our hearts.”
“Were you willing to be regenerated?”
“I didn’t know I was being regenerated.” Those words slipped out
before Al knew it. He had to continue. “That has to come first before
anyone can believe the gospel. We’re regenerated and then given faith
—”
“Exactly what I said. Your will was set against God. Out of the blue He
regenerated you. If that isn’t against your will....”
“Well...I’ll have to think about that.”
“You didn’t have a choice. He just elected you.”
“Grace has to be irresistible, because no one wants it. You think a
sovereign God is going to let man have the last word! Then He’s not
sovereign! The God I believe in isn’t going to let puny man frustrate His
purposes! You don’t understand sovereignty...God doesn’t share His
throne!”
“Sovereignty, foreknowledge, free will...Calvinists make it all so
complicated,” countered Jan. “But the Bible is simple enough for a child
to understand. The real issue is love—and that clarifies everything. You
actually believe that God who is love only loves certain ones and
predestines the rest to eternal damnation? What love is this?”
“Well...the Bible does teach election. You admit that....”
“Forget election for the moment—”
“It’s in the Bible, for heaven’s sake! How can you forget it?”
“I mean that’s too complicated. There’s something simpler—God’s
love. I can’t believe that the God I know sends anyone to hell that He
could rescue!”
“It doesn’t make me comfortable, either. But the Bible teaches this is
God’s good pleasure.”
“Where does the Bible say that! My Bible says that God has no
pleasure in the destruction of the wicked but wants all to be saved. Al, I
love you but I can’t go along with this. That’s not the God of love I know
and read of in the Bible. I think the Calvinism you and Pastor are into
misrepresents God. But I don’t want to discuss it—we just argue.”
“We’re not arguing, Jan. This is important. I’ve been studying this for
months.”
“Al, I admire you for the effort you’ve put into it. But it takes no study
to see that God loves the whole world so much that He sent His Son to die
for everyone’s sins, so that ‘the world through him might be saved.’ And
that’s just one verse.”
“World there doesn’t mean every individual but all kinds of people that
make up humanity—the elect,” Al countered. “You just don’t understand.
A little more study….”
“Don’t you think I’ve been studying too? I know enough verses to tell
me that Calvinism libels the God who Paul said wants ‘all men to be
saved’ (1 Timothy 2:4) and Peter said ‘is not willing that any should
perish’
(2 Peter 3:9).”
“All men means all classes. Paul says, ‘Kings…all that are in authority…’
in 1 Timothy 2:2. He’s saying there are all classes in the elect. If you’d let
me explain—”
“Please, Al, don’t complicate the Bible. When it says God loves the
whole world and doesn’t want any to perish, why work so hard to make it
say elect?” Jan shrugged her shoulders helplessly. “You go ahead and
study Calvinism. I’ll stick with my simple faith, and let’s not argue about
it.”
“We’re not arguing—just discussing.”
But Jan had turned to the kitchen sink and was busying herself
cleaning up the dinner dishes, humming, “Blessed assurance, Jesus is
mine....”
Hell: Whose Choice?
It was deeply troubling to Al (though he wasn’t ready to admit it to
Jan) that, in spite of the Bible’s presentation from Genesis to Revelation
of God’s love, grace, and mercy to all, Calvinism portrayed God as pleased
to damn billions. At one time, this view had seemed the only way to
uphold God’s sovereignty, but now he wondered whether an
overemphasis upon sovereignty had diminished God’s love. He read
where White said:
We know, naturally, that we are to have God’s glory as our highest goal, our
highest priority. So it should not be at all surprising that the most profound answer
Scripture gives to the question of “what’s it all about” is that it is about God’s
 glory. All of salvation results in the praise of the glory of His grace.12

Those were nice words to which a few months earlier Al would have
assented without much thought. Now he wondered how predestining
multitudes to eternal torment could be to the glory of God’s grace—and
how even the salvation of the elect could glorify God if He could have
done the same for all, but didn’t.
Jan’s words from months earlier came back to haunt him: “The Bible
teaches that those in hell will be there because, although God didn’t want
them to go there and lovingly provided and freely offered full salvation,
they rejected it.”
To say that God’s sovereignty would be denied if man had a choice no
longer seemed quite as foolproof as it once had. Couldn’t God make a
sovereign decision to allow man free will? Al began cautiously to read
some critics of Calvinism and came across the following, which seemed to
make a lot of sense:
What takes the greater power (omnipotence): to create beings who have no ability
to choose—who are mere pawns on God’s cosmic chessboard—or to create beings
who have the freedom to accept or reject God’s salvation? I submit, the latter....
Would a God who ordained the existence of immortal beings without making any
provision for them to escape eternal torment be a cruel being? What kind of God
would call on mankind to “believe and be saved” when He knows they cannot
[and] what kind of relationship is there between God and people who could never
choose Him—but are “irresistibly” called...? For these and other reasons I question
the idea that individual unconditional election and five-point Calvinism best reflect
the attributes of God. A God who sovereignly offers salvation to all through His
elect Savior reflects both power and love.13

Perseverance of the Saints?

Al continued wrestling with the matter of assurance. Even aside from
the question of whether he was one of the elect, he was still confused
about whether his experience of trusting Christ was biblical. Reading
again James White’s The Potter’s Freedom, he came across the statement
once more upon which Calvinists were in almost 100 percent agreement:
“[S]omething must happen before a person can ‘hear’ or believe in Christ:
and that is the work of God in regenerating the natural man and bringing
him to spiritual life.”14 That certainly hadn’t been the sequence of events
in his coming to Christ, as he remembered it. He had thought that he had
been regenerated (born again) following his faith in Christ and as a result
of believing the gospel.
But much like White, Jonathan Edwards also taught that there had to
be “the principle of holiness that precedes faith...the alteration made in
the heart of the sinner before there can be action [i.e., faith in Christ].”15
Going back in his memory to that decisive night, Al could not see how that
could have been the case.
Al was listening to a tape by John Armstrong, a man he greatly admired
as a leading Calvinist, and was shocked to hear him say, “I was asked the
question about a year ago by a group of pastors in Pennsylvania...‘What
do you think is the one doctrine that is the most destructive in the life of
the church...today?’ And I said, the doctrine of Eternal Security.”16
Al couldn’t believe his ears. He had to rewind the tape and listen to it
two more times. Sure enough, he’d heard it right the first time. So the
worst thing possible was to have assurance of salvation? Armstrong
seemed to explain why any apparent assurance could only be false: “God
justifies, but man must have faith and he must obey...(Romans 2:13–14).
When it says the one who obeys the law is justified, it means exactly that.
That is not a hypothetical verse, ladies and gentlemen, the way many
Protestants have read it. And when James 2:13–14 says, ‘The doers of the
law shall be justified,’ it means the doers of the law shall be justified.
That’s why Paul and James are not in conflict.... Let me suggest...[also]
Ephesians 2:8–10.... We are saved unto good works. They’re necessary
consequential works. Without them there is no salvation. Right?”17
No wonder there could be no assurance of salvation: it depended upon
our keeping the law! The Bible says no one has kept the law, so who could
be saved? Al was devastated. Was Armstrong right or was Dillow? Yet
both of them not only contradicted one another but themselves as well.
On the same tape, Armstrong said that man had no will, that Luther’s
Bondage of the Will was what the Reformation was all about, and that
even the faith to believe was a gift of God. So how could it be man’s
responsibility to believe and keep the law? Al was bewildered. Nor did it
help when Armstrong gave his antidote: “Perseverance, and here’s the
point, is the necessary attribute of justification.”18
Perseverance? That sure put the burden on him. Did he just need to
persevere? What good would that do if he wasn’t among the elect?
Perseverance was everything for some Calvinists, but not for others.
Whom should Al believe? And how could a failure to persevere after the
fact prove that one had not been saved in the first place? Why, that
would mean that one could never be sure he had ever been saved until he
died and thus knew whether he had truly persevered to the end! Al had
once been so happy with the fifth point of Calvinism because he thought
it meant that God would do the persevering: “For it is God which worketh
in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure” (Philippians 2:13). Now
he discovered that the persevering in good works and keeping the law
was up to him, and he knew that he couldn’t do it—certainly not if he
wasn’t one of the elect. That was the question that tortured him.
Why hadn’t he noticed earlier this emphasis upon one’s own
perseverance? Al knew that his “performance” had deteriorated lately,
and that meant that his perseverance in the faith was far from what it
ought to be. That he was plagued by doubts was further proof that he
was not persevering. And the doubts only grew the more he studied the
writings of leading Calvinists, ancient or modern. Could it be Calvinism
itself that fostered the doubts? Perhaps Calvin was admitting this when
he wrote:
 For there is scarcely a mind in which the thought does not sometimes rise,
Whence your salvation but from the election of God? But what proof have you of
your election? When once this thought has taken possession of any individual, it
keeps him perpetually miserable, subjects him to dire torment, or throws him into
a state of complete stupor.... Therefore, as we dread shipwreck, we must avoid
this rock, which is fatal to every one who strikes upon it....19

Al was devastated. To try to be sure you’re one of the elect would be

fatal? Wait a minute! Wasn’t it Calvinism’s doctrine of election that had
caused his uncertainty? Non-Calvinists had no such doubts. If he
abandoned this doctrine would he find peace?
More and More Unanswered Questions
Al began cautiously to ask Christian friends how they knew they were
saved. The Calvinists said they were among the elect and had the works
to prove it, though at times they weren’t especially comfortable with
their performance. The non-Calvinists simply replied that they had
believed the gospel. Christ had promised eternal life to all who would
come to Him in faith, and that was good enough for them.
The more Al studied, the more the troubling questions mounted. If
man is totally depraved by nature, how can he aspire to and even do good
deeds? But he does. If Total Depravity isn’t total in that regard, then why
is it total when it comes to believing the gospel? Why would God
repeatedly appeal to men to repent if they couldn’t? Why send His
prophets day after day, year after year, pleading with unregenerate Israel,
if they were predestined to rebel and go to hell? If Grace was Irresistible,
why not just impart it to everyone? Wouldn’t love do that?
Everyone? It always came back to Jan’s main complaint—how could
God who is love allow anyone to perish whom He could save? Even
worse, how could the God of all grace (1 Peter 5:10) and mercy will
anyone’s destruction? He had never admitted it to Jan, but that question
had long troubled him, and now was beginning to push everything else
into the background. Jan’s earnest query haunted him: “What love is
this?”
Somehow, a little booklet by Spurgeon fell into Al’s hands, and he was
excited to read that even that great preacher and staunch Calvinist
admitted that he’d had no perception at the time of his conversion that
God had sovereignly regenerated him, nor could he imagine at what point
that could have happened. Spurgeon confessed, “When I was coming to
Christ, I thought I was doing it all myself—I sought the Lord earnestly....”
It was not until some time later that he realized that “God was at the
bottom of it all.... He was the Author of my faith, and so the whole
doctrine of grace opened up to me....”20 He closed his sermon declaring
that those Christians who are most pious, reverent, and devoted to the
Lord “believe that they are saved by Grace, without works, through faith,
and that not of themselves, it is the gift of God.”21 That sounded like his
non-Calvinist friends and the way he had believed before becoming a
Calvinist!
To God Be the Glory!
Al remembered that before he’d become a Calvinist he had praised
God for being the Author of salvation and the Savior of sinners, had given
all credit and glory to Him, and had understood very clearly that he would
never have sought Him had God not moved upon him by His Spirit to do
so. But he had also been certain that it was his responsibility to respond
in faith from his heart. Surely, for man to respond to God by gratefully
receiving the gift of salvation would not nullify anything Spurgeon said.
And how could it challenge God’s sovereignty for man to receive
gratefully what God offered while giving God all the glory?
Jan, in fact, had some time previously suggested, “It seems to me that
my praise and gratitude to the Lord is more genuine and more glorifying
to God than any Calvinist’s.”
“How can you say that?” Al had protested.
 “Because my gratitude and praise comes from my heart. I wasn’t
programmed to accept Christ—”
“Programmed? No Calvinist teaches that!”
“You don’t call it that, but you were totally opposed to God and
instead of your heart being won to Christ by His love and grace and
mercy, you were made to believe—”
“Not made to believe,” Al interrupted impatiently. When would she
ever understand? “Our wills are changed graciously!”
“Okay, you were caused to believe. Al, you can’t get around the fact
that God did something to your will so that you believed what you
formerly didn’t believe. And it didn’t come about by any conviction on
your part, any understanding, any faith on your part. I’ve been reading
some of those Calvinist books you’ve got.”
Like every other argument—yes, that’s what they had become—this
one, too, ended with neither of them giving any ground. But Al was
increasingly shaken in his confidence that Calvinism was the truth of God.
Most troubling had been the realization that his uncertainty seemed to
arise out of Calvinism itself. No wonder Calvin had voiced so many
warnings about doubts:
Among the temptations with which Satan assaults believers, none is greater or
more perilous, than when disquieting them with doubts as to their election, he at
the same time stimulates them with a depraved desire of inquiring after it out of
the proper way...I mean when puny man endeavors to penetrate to the hidden
recesses of the divine wisdom...in order that he may understand what final
determination God has made with regard to him.22

So it wasn’t proper to want to know God’s “final determination...with

regard to him”? But there was nothing so important! It seemed that
Calvin kept contradicting himself. Sometimes he even seemed to say that
we should just trust God for our election: “Our confidence ought to go no
farther than the word....”23 Al realized that if he did that he would turn
from Calvinism, back to simple faith in the gospel. Perhaps, thought Al in
despair, he ought to go back even before what he had thought was his
conversion and return to the Church of his upbringing.
Desperation—and Enlightenment
Al began to think more seriously of returning to Catholicism.
Embarrassed and uncertain, he went back to his old parish and found that
a new priest who didn’t know him was in charge. That made it easier. In
the process of telling the new man that he wanted to explore possibly
returning to Roman Catholicism, somehow the name of Calvin came up.
In the next fifteen minutes, to his utter amazement, Al discovered that
this priest knew even more about Calvinism than did Pastor Jim.
A well-worn copy of Calvin’s Institutes of the Christian Religion was
pulled from a shelf and the priest began to read a section he was sure
would settle any question in Al’s mind of returning to the true Church. Al
almost jumped up and shouted, “Hallelujah!” when what Calvin had said
about baptism was read to him. He could hardly believe his ears that,
according to Calvin, his baptism as a baby into the Roman Catholic Church
had made him one of the elect. All he had to do was to believe the
promise inherent in his Catholic baptism!
Al was ecstatic. The Catholic Church had done more for him than he
had known. So he was one of the elect after all: Calvin himself had said it!
All Al needed to do was to trust his baptism.
But this new assurance lasted for only a few days. Was his faith to be
in his baptism as an infant too young to understand anything, and at the
hands of a Catholic priest, who himself taught and practiced a false
salvation? Was that really the biblical foundation of eternal salvation?
Well, Calvin had said so.
What about the true gospel he had believed, “the power of God unto
salvation,” and as a result had been born again? If being baptized as a
baby when he didn’t even know what was happening had made him a
child of God, as Calvin had insisted, even to the persecution of those who
disagreed, then what was the point of his believing the gospel? No, he
couldn’t accept that, even if Calvin had declared it. Al had finally come to
a fish in the Calvinism pond too large to swallow.
Now he faced new doubts: If Calvin had been so wrong about infant
baptism—and there was no doubt that like Luther he had been—maybe
the rest of his teaching was equally false. Why should he believe TULIP at
all? It seemed impossible that Calvin could have ever written such heresy
as he had about baptism—yes, heresy; there was no other name for it—
but the priest had shown it to him right there in the Institutes, and Al had
looked it up for himself when he got home.
A Forgotten Challenge
Al turned again to his collection of Calvinist writers and began going
through their books and listening to their tapes once more, hoping to find
the elusive answer he’d been seeking. Tucked inside one of the books, he
found a letter received from a concerned friend a few months after he’d
become a Calvinist. Now the forgotten and important role it had played in
contributing to his doubts flooded his memory. He read it again carefully
and thoughtfully:
As for the doctrine of election humbling you, have you ever considered how you
know you are one of the elect? Calvin literally said that God causes some of the
non-elect to imagine they have believed and are among the elect, the better to
judge them. Is that the God you now believe in? Are you sure you aren’t just
imagining you are one of the elect?

What qualifies you to be one of the elect? Calvin said there was no reason for God
to choose you except that it pleased Him to do so. He also says that it pleased and
glorified Him to predestine billions to burn in an eternal hell. Doesn’t that bother
you? Do you want to accept grace from that “God”? I think that’s a libel on God’s
character!
 There was more to it—a host of verses (which Al knew very well by
now) declaring that God was not willing that any perish, that He wanted
all to know the truth and to be set free, that Christ came to seek and to
save sinners, not some sinners, etc. Al folded the letter thoughtfully and
carefully put it back in the book. Originally it had made him so angry that
he hadn’t answered it. He must reply at last—and much differently from
the way he would have responded before. But he didn’t want Jan to see
the letter or his reply—at least not yet.
The Turning Point
Pondering that letter and how to answer it, Al was struck with the
compelling fact that his wife, whom he had “led to the Lord,” had the very
assurance of salvation that he was seeking. From the very first, when he
had been intrigued by Calvinism’s intellectual appeal, she had tried to
avoid discussing the subject whenever he had brought it up. All she would
say was that she was resting in Christ’s love and promise and that the
gospel couldn’t be as complicated as having to change the obvious
meaning of words into something else to make God less loving than what
the Bible said He was.
What the Bible said! Those words suddenly took on a new meaning
and became his deliverance. Getting back to the Bible was the turning
point. Al stopped listening to and reading Calvinist and non-Calvinist
experts and began to seriously study the Bible itself. It felt as if a burden
had rolled off his shoulders just to be able to take the words of Scripture
for what they said, rather than having to change them to fit Calvinism.
Among the last issues he wrestled with was Christ’s statement, “Ye
have not chosen me, but I have chosen you” (John 15:16). In pondering
those words, Al realized he was complicating something that was rather
simple. Christ was saying nothing more than any employer could say to
each employee—that the employer’s choosing was decisive. The
employee could not force the employer to hire him; but neither could the
employer force someone to work for him. Though the employer was
completely in charge, the employee had to consent to being hired.
Likewise, we can’t force Christ to choose us. He is under no obligation
to us; salvation is alone by His grace and mercy and love. But our faith is
essential. Salvation is only for those who believe in and receive Christ.
Al took up his remaining doubts with his pastor. They had some long
discussions, and in spite of the pastor’s efforts to keep him in the fold,
Al’s faith in Calvinism had been too badly eroded, while his confidence in
the simple gospel was slowly being restored. Finally, only one problem
remained which he had to wrestle with on his knees: there was no
question that the Bible stated quite clearly that God blinded people’s
eyes to the gospel. How could that be reconciled with the infinite love
that Al now believed God had for all without discrimination?
Calvinism’s Last Stand
A favorite scripture of Calvinists, and one to which White gives
considerable attention24 is John’s comment: “Therefore they could not
believe, because that Esaias said again, He hath blinded their eyes, and
hardened their heart” (John 12:39–40). White also quotes John 8:34–48,
“Why do you not understand what I am saying? It is because you cannot
hear My word....” He then declares:
Again the Reformed and biblical view of man is presented with force: Jesus teaches
that the Jews cannot (there’s that word of inability again) hear His word and do
not understand what He is saying...they lack the spiritual ability to appraise
spiritual truths.25

Far from proving Total Depravity, however, and thus the necessity of
Irresistible Grace, Al could now see that these passages proved the
opposite. If the unregenerate Jews were totally depraved and dead in sins
as Calvinism defines it, unable in that condition to see or believe, surely
God would not have needed to blind their eyes and harden their hearts.
The fact that God finds it necessary to blind and harden anyone would
seem to be proof that unregenerate men are able to understand and
believe the gospel after all.
But why would a loving God deliberately blind the eyes of the lost
whom He loves to prevent them from believing the gospel? This seemed
especially puzzling to Al in view of God’s continual lamentations over
Israel for her refusal to obey, and His repeated expressions of desire to
forgive and to bless her.
Since Israel was already in rebellion against God, why would He further
harden hearts? There would have to be a good reason for doing this, a
reason that would not diminish God’s love and mercy; a reason that must
apply equally to the Jews in Isaiah’s day and yet speak prophetically of
those in Christ’s day. What could that be?
Inspired of God, Israel’s prophets laid out her sin, rebellion, and
stubbornness. For example, God through Isaiah laments, “Hear, O
heavens, and give ear, O earth:... I have nourished and brought up
children, and they have rebelled against me” (Isaiah 1:2). God knew their
hard hearts and that there was no point in pleading with them further.
But He was going to use them to fulfill His purposes declared by His
prophets, just as He used Pharaoh.
God would send His Son to reveal His great love, to open the eyes of
the blind, heal the sick, raise the dead, feed the hungry, offer Himself to
Israel as their Messiah, weep over Jerusalem here on earth as He had
done repeatedly from heaven through His prophets in ages past, and die
for their sins and for the sins of the world. He would not allow that
purpose to be frustrated by a momentary sentimentality on the part of
the Jews that might cause them, while still rejecting Him, not to insist
upon the cross.
They were going to cry, “Away with Him, crucify Him!” This was what
their hard hearts really wanted. And to make certain that they did not
relent at the last minute out of humanistic pity, God hardened their
hearts and blinded their eyes. So Peter could say, “Him, being delivered
by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken,
and by wicked hands have crucified and slain” (Acts 2:23).
Al could see a similar example in the blindness that will be given to
those left behind at the Rapture who have heard and rejected the gospel.
Paul states specifically, “And for this cause God shall send them strong
delusion, that they should believe a lie: that they all might be damned...”
(2 Thessalonians 2:10–12). For what cause? Because “they received not
the love of the truth, that they might be saved...who believed not the
truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.” God would help them to
believe the lie their already hardened hearts wanted to believe.
Here we see not a God who arbitrarily blinds people so they can’t be
saved, but a loving God who is also perfectly just in giving unrepentant
rebels the desire of their hearts, which leads to their damnation. They
rejected the truth, so God helps them to persist in that rejection. Nor
would He need to blind them if they were totally depraved as Calvinism
defines it.
Yes, “the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of
God...neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned
[i.e., revealed alone by the Holy Spirit]” (1 Corinthians 2:14). But there
Paul is not referring to the gospel that is to be preached “to every
creature” (Mark 16:15). He is addressing believers and referring to “the
hidden wisdom...the deep things of God,” which are only revealed by the
Spirit of God to those who are indwelt by and walking in obedience to the
Holy Spirit.
The Final Question
Pastor Jim, concerned about Al’s weakening confidence in Calvinism,
had challenged him: “If you are going to return to the belief that you had
the ability to say yes to God in believing the gospel, how can you be sure
that some time you may not decide to say no to God—even in eternity in
heaven?” Zins expresses that problem as well as anyone:
It is ironic that many...who adamantly argue that God forces no one to come to
Him have no problem believing that God forces those who have come to Him to
stay with Him. For most evangelicals, free will mysteriously disappears after one
chooses salvation....“God will not make you come, but He will make you stay,”
might be their theological sentiment.26

Al asked Jan about this, and her reply was as simple as the Bible itself:
“Why would I ever want to give up heaven? There would be nothing to
tempt me away from our Lord, who is so wonderful that nothing could!”
“How can you be so sure,” persisted Al? “Satan was the most beautiful,
powerful, intelligent being ever created. All he knew was the presence of
God—yet he rebelled!”
Jan was thoughtful for a moment. Finally she said, “Yeah, but he was
never redeemed…never bought with the blood of Christ…. He had no
basis for loving God, no gratitude to Christ for dying in his place….”
“So you think gratitude will keep a person from sinning?” cut in Al.
“There won’t be any temptation to sin, no reason…it wouldn’t make
sense.”
Al was not trying to argue, to put her down. “But who tempted Satan?
What was his reason? It was pride. Couldn’t those in heaven be tempted
to pride if they had a free will?”
“Al, you keep bringing up Satan. I don’t know anything about him…and
I don’t think we’re supposed to speculate about him and his demons.
That has nothing to do with us. We are entirely different beings.”
She paused again thoughtfully, then continued. “In Romans 7, Paul
says, ‘the flesh lusts against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh…the
two are contrary, so you can’t do what you would.’ He describes this
inner conflict as the reason why a Christian sins, if they do, and then he
cries out, ‘O wretched man that I am, who will deliver me from this body
of death?’—and adds, ‘I thank God, through Jesus Christ.’ He must be
saying that the resurrection, delivering us from these bodies of sin,
suffering and death, is going to solve that problem….”
Al was thinking silently. “That’s a good point,” he conceded at last. “I
guess Satan’s example doesn’t have much to do with what Christians will
experience in heaven. You’re right, he was never born again, certainly not
indwelt with the Holy Spirit.”
After a long, thoughtful silence, he added, “Look, I’m not just trying to
argue, as I admit has been the case too often in the past. This is a real
problem and I’m looking for honest answers. I want to know the truth…
but if we still have free will in heaven, I don’t see how….” His words
trailed off into a frustrated silence.
Jan gave him a long look of understanding and sympathy. “You really
want to know the truth? Jesus said, ‘Thy word is truth…I am the truth…
the resurrection and the life.’ He promised believers eternal life…that we
would never perish. I believe Him. That’s all I need to know…it’s that
simple.” She smiled lovingly and went back to ironing Al’s shirts.
A few days later, it suddenly hit Al like light from heaven that his
eternal security as saved by grace depended entirely upon God and not
upon himself. Neither salvation nor the assurance thereof is by works, nor
can works be a sign of the reality of one’s salvation or the means of
providing assurance. Even the apparent working of miracles, casting out
of demons, and prophesying in Christ’s name are no proof that one
belongs to Him, as Christ himself solemnly declared:
Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of
heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. Many will say
to me in that day, 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 7:21–23)

On the other hand, there could be in the life of a particular person not
one good work to indicate the reality of salvation, yet that person could
be truly saved and thus elected of God to the blessings He has planned for
the redeemed of all ages. All of one’s works could be consumed in the fire
of God’s testing of motives and deeds, yet that person not be lost,
according to Paul, in spite of no outward evidence of salvation:
Every man’s work shall be...revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man’s work
of what sort it is. If any man’s work abide...he shall receive a reward. If any man’s
work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as
by fire. (1 Corinthians 3:11–15)

Paul, of course, was speaking of those who are truly saved through
faith in Christ. Al could now see his problem clearly: not one verse in the
Bible tells how to know one has been elected. If being one of the elect is
the basis for assurance of salvation, then there can be no assurance.
But one had to be certain about eternity! Yet Calvinists couldn’t agree
among themselves on the answer to what was obviously the most crucial
question. Al decided at last that he was finished with that theory.
Assurance for Eternity
Biblical assurance of eternal life in heaven with Christ rests alone upon
His promises, the promises of the Bible, and upon the foreknowledge,
predestination/election, and keeping power of God. Christ said, “Come
unto me,” and we came. The gospel says, “Believe on the Lord Jesus
Christ and thou shalt be saved,” and we believed. Christ and His Word
promise the following:

• Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father,

through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and
sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ.... (1 Peter 1:2)
• According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation
of the world...having predestinated us unto the adoption of
children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good
pleasure of his will.... In whom we have redemption through his
blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his
grace.... (Ephesians 1:4–7)

• For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be

conformed to the image of his Son.… Whom he did
predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them
he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.
(Romans 8:29–30)

• But as many as received him, to them gave he power to

become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his
name: which were born [again], not of blood, nor of the will of
the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. (John 1:12–13)

• For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world;
but that the world through him might be saved. He that
believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is
condemned already.… He that believeth on the Son hath
everlasting life.... (John 3:17–18, 36)

• And this is the record, that God hath given to us eternal life,
and this life is in his Son. He that hath the Son hath life; and he
that hath not the Son of God hath not life. These things have I
written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God;
that ye may know that ye have eternal life.... (1 John 5:11–13)

• Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and

believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall
not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto
 life. (John 5:24)
We believed, were saved “according to the promise of life which is in
Christ Jesus” (2 Timothy 1:1), and are simply resting in His abundant
promises that “whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have
everlasting life” (John 3:16). By simple faith in God’s promise (the God
who cannot lie), the believer knows that he has passed from death to life
and will never perish—and he has been given the witness of the Holy
Spirit within: “He that believeth on the Son of God hath the witness in
himself...” (1 John 5:10). And “the Spirit itself beareth witness with our
spirit, that we are the children of God:...heirs of God, and joint-heirs with
Christ...” (Romans 8:16–17).
Having “heard the word of truth, the gospel of [our] salvation: in
whom also after that [we] believed, [we] were sealed with that holy Spirit
of promise, which is the earnest of our inheritance until the redemption
of the purchased possession...” (Ephesians 1:13–14). Those who believe
on Christ know they are saved and will never perish, because God cannot
lie. Our trust is in Him for now and eternity.
Paul said, “I know whom I have believed, and am persuaded that he is
able to keep that which I have committed unto him against that day” (2
Timothy 1:12). We, too, have believed and know the One in whom we are
eternally secure. We, too, are fully persuaded that “the God and Father of
our Lord Jesus Christ...according to his abundant mercy hath begotten us
again unto a lively hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead,
to an inheritance incorruptible, and undefiled, and that fadeth not away,
reserved in heaven for [us], who are kept by the power of God through
faith unto salvation ready to be revealed in the last time” (1 Peter 1:3–5).
We have the many infallible proofs of prophecy fulfilled in Israel (and
still being fulfilled before our eyes), and those that promised in detail the
coming of the Messiah—prophesies that have without question been
fulfilled in the life, death, and resurrection of our Lord and Savior Jesus
Christ. We have the historical proofs, the archaeological proofs, the
scientific proofs, and the internal proofs that the Bible is God’s Word. The
Bible offers a true and infallible testimony of the creation of this earth,
the fall of Adam and Eve, the redemption through Christ’s blood poured
out in death upon the cross, of His soon return for His bride, and of His
Second Coming to rescue Israel and to establish His millennial kingdom,
when He will rule with a rod of iron over the nations from His father
David’s throne in Jerusalem—and of the coming new heavens and new
earth.
We simply believe God’s Word in all things, and we are therefore
certain that we are saved and that He is coming back to take us to His
Father’s house of many mansions to fulfill His promise “that where I am,
there ye may be also” (John 14:1–3). As Paul said, “...and so shall we ever
be with the Lord. Wherefore comfort one another with these words” (1
Thessalonians 4:17–18).

1. John F. MacArthur, Jr., The Gospel According to Jesus (Academie Books, Grand Rapids,
MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1988), 98.
2. Joseph C. Dillow, The Reign of the Servant Kings: A Study of Eternal Security and the
Final Significance of Man (Haysville, NC: Schoettle Publishing Co., 2nd ed. 1993), 253.
3. John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, trans. Henry Beveridge (Grand Rapids,
MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1998 ed.), III: xxiv, 5.
4. Ibid., III: xxi, 1.
5. Discussions by Robert L. Dabney, ed. C. R. Vaughn (Richmond, VA: Presbyterian
Committee of Publication, 1890), 1:183.
6. Kenneth Gentry, “Assurance and Lordship Salvation: The Dispensational Concern”
(Dispensationalism in Transition, September 1993); quoted by Robert N. Wilkin, “When
Assurance Is Not Assurance,” Journal of the Grace Evangelical Society, Autumn 1997,
10:19, 27–34.
 7. Walter D. Chantry, Today’s Gospel: Authentic or Synthetic? (Carlisle, PA: The Banner of
Truth Trust, 1970), 75–76.
 8. Dillow, Reign, 280.
 9. Cited in Philip F. Congdon, “Soteriological Implications of Five-point Calvinism,” Journal
of the Grace Evangelical Society, Autumn 1995, 8:15, 55–68.
10. Howard Marshall; cited in D. A. Carson, “Reflections on Christian Assurance,”
Westminster Theological Journal, 54:1,24.
11. Dillow, Reign, 272–91.
12. James R. White, The Potter’s Freedom (Amityville, NY: Calvary Press Publishing, 2000),
178.
13. Congdon, “Implications,” 8:15, 56–57.
14. White, Potter’s, 112–13.
15. John Armstrong, “Reflections from Jonathan Edwards on the Current Debate over
Justification by Faith Alone” (quoted in speech given at Annapolis 2000: A Passion for
Truth conference, sponsored by Jonathan Edwards Institute, PO Box 2410, Princeton NJ
08543). For more information on Jonathan Edwards’s view on justification, contact Grace
Evangelical Society, (972) 257–1160.
16. Ibid.
17. Ibid.
18. Ibid.
19. Calvin, Institutes, III: xxiv, 4.
20. Charles Haddon Spurgeon, “A Defense of Calvinism,” single-sermon booklet (Edmonton,
AB: Still Waters Revival Books, n. d.), 3–4.
21. Ibid., 22.
22. Calvin, Institutes.
23. Ibid., III: xxiv, 3.
24. White, Potter’s, 105–109.
25. Ibid., 112–14.
26. Robert M. Zins, “A Believer’s Guide to 2nd Peter 3:9” (self-published monograph, n. d.),
3.
A Final Word
MY HEART HAS BEEN BROKEN by Calvinism’s misrepresentation of the
God of the Bible, whom I love with all my heart, and for the excuse this
has given atheists not to believe in Him. My sincere and earnest desire in
writing this book has been to defend God’s character against the libel that
denies His love for all and insists that He does not make salvation
available to all because He does not want all to be saved. It is my prayer
that readers will recognize that Christian authors and leaders, ancient or
modern and no matter how well respected, are all fallible and that God’s
Word is our only authority.
God’s Word declares that the gospel, which is “the power of God unto
salvation to every one that believeth” (Romans 1: 16), is “good tidings of
great joy,” not just to certain elect, but “to all people” (Luke 2:10). Sadly,
the insistence that only a select group have been elected to salvation is
not “good tidings of great joy to all people”! How can such a doctrine be
biblical?
It is my prayer that Calvinist readers who may have gotten this far have
been fully persuaded to misrepresent no longer the God of love as having
predestinated multitudes to eternal doom while withholding from them
any opportunity to understand and believe the gospel. How many
unbelievers have rejected God because of this deplorable distortion we
do not know—but may that excuse be denied every reader from this time
forth! And may believers, in confidence that the gospel is indeed glad
tidings for all people, take God’s good news to the whole world!
Bibliography
Acts, An Introduction and Commentary. Tyndale New Testament
Commentaries. Downer’s Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1974.
Adams, James E. Decisional Regeneration. McDonough, GA: Free Grace
Publications, 1972.
Adams, Jay E. Competent to Counsel. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book
House, 1970.
A Faith to Confess: The Baptist Confession of Faith of 1689, Rewritten in
Modern English. Carey Publications, 1986.
A Short Explanation of Dr. Martin Luther’s Small Catechism: A Handbook
of Christian Doctrine. St. Louis, MO: Concordia Publishing House, 1971
ed.
Alford, Henry. The New Testament for English Readers. Grand Rapids, MI:
Baker Book House, 1983.
Allen, J. W. History of Political Thought in the Sixteenth Century. London,
1951.
Amédée, Roget. L’Église et l’État a Genève du temps de Calvin. Étude
d’histoire politico-ecclésiastique. Geneva: J. Jullien, 1867.
Anderson, Sir Robert. The Bible or the Church? London: Pickering and
Inglis, 2nd ed., n. d.
“Arminian / Calvinist Response.” In SBC Life, August 1995.
Arminius, Jacobus. The Works of James Arminius. Translated by James and
William Nichols. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1986.
Armstrong, John. “Reflections from Jonathan Edwards on the Current
Debate over Justification by Faith Alone.” Quoted in speech given at
Annapolis 2000: A Passion for Truth conference. Sponsored by
Jonathan Edwards Institute, PO Box 2410, Princeton, NJ 08543. For
more information on Jonathan Edwards’s view on justification, contact
Grace Evangelical Society, (972) 257–1160.
Augustine, On the Gift of Perseverance.
http://whitefield.freeservices.com/augustine06.html.
———. A Treatment on the Soul and its Origins. n. p., n. d.
———. The City of God. Translated by Marcus Dods. In Great Books of the
Western World. Robert Maynard Hutchins and Mortimer J. Adler, eds.
Encyclopaedia Brittanica, Inc., 1952.
———. The Confessions. In Great Books of the Western World, Robert
Maynard Hutchins and Mortimer J. Adler, eds. Translated by Edward
Bouverie Pusey. Encyclopaedia Brittanica, Inc., 1952.
Bainton, Roland. Hunted Heretic: The Life of Michael Servetus. Boston:
The Beacon Press, 1953.
———. Michel Servet, hérétique et martyr. Geneva: Droz, 1953.
Baker, Alvin L. Berkouwer’s Doctrine of Election: Balance or Imbalance?
Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1981.
Baxter, Richard. Universal Redemption of Mankind. London, 1694.
Bayne, Jennifer L., and Sarah E. Hinlicky. “Free to be Creatures Again: How
predestination descended like a dove on two unsuspecting seminarians,
and why they are so grateful.” In Christianity Today, October 23, 2000.
Beard, Charles. The Reformation of the Sixteenth Century in Relation to
Modern Thought and Knowledge. London, 1885.
Beck, Frank B. The Five Points of Calvinism. Lithgow, Australia: Covenanter
 Press, 2nd Australian ed. 1986.
Berkhof, Louis. The History of Christian Doctrines. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker
Book House, 1937.
Bertocci, Peter A. Free Will, Responsibility, and Grace. Nashville, TN:
Abingdon Press, 1957.
Best, W. E. Free Grace Versus Free Will. Houston, TX: W. E. Best Books
Missionary Trust, 1977.
———. Simple Faith (A Misnomer). Houston, TX: W. E. Best Books
Missionary Trust, 1993.
Bettany, G. T. A Popular History of the Reformation and Modern
Protestantism. London: Ward, Lock and Bowden, Ltd, 1895.
Billion, James F. True Wisdom Has Two Sides: Calvinism—is it Biblical?
Edinburgh: Grace Mount Publishers, n. d.
Bishop, George S. The Doctrines of Grace. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book
House, 1977.
Boettner, Loraine. The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination. Phillipsburg,
NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1932.
———. The Reformed Faith. Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed
Publishing Co., 1983.
Bouwsma, William J. John Calvin: A Sixteenth Century Portrait. United
Kingdom: Oxford University Press, 1988.
Breese, Dave. “The Five Points of Calvinism.” Self-published paper, n. d.
Broadbent, E. H. The Pilgrim Church. Port Colborne, ON: Gospel Folio
Press, reprint 1999.
Bronson, Charles W. The Extent of the Atonement. Pasadena, TX: Pilgrim
Publications, 1992.
Broughton, Len G. Salvation and the Old Theology. London: Hodder and
Stroughton, n. d.
Bruce, F. F. The Books and the Parchments. London: Pickering and Inglis,
Ltd., 1950.
———. The English Bible: A History of Translations. New York: Oxford
University Press, 1961.
———. The Epistles to the Colossians, to Philemon, and to the Ephesians.
Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1984.
———. Light in the West, Bk. III of The Spreading Flame. Grand Rapids,
MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1956.
Bryson, George L. The Five Points of Calvinism“Weighed and Found
Wanting.” Costa Mesa, CA: The Word For Today, 1996.
Buisson, Ferdinand and Sebastien Castellion. Sa vie et son oeuvre. Paris:
Hachette, 1892.
Butterworth, Charles C. The Literary Lineage of the King James Bible.
Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1941.
Cairns, Earle E. Christianity Through the Centuries: A History of the
Christian Church. Revised and enlarged ed. Grand Rapids, MI:
Zondervan Publishing, 1981.
Calvin, John. Calvin’s New Testament Commentaries. Grand Rapids, MI:
Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1994.
______.Commentary on the Gospel of John, The Comprehensive John
Calvin Collection. Ages Digital Library, 1998.
———. Institutes of the Christian Religion. Translated by Henry Beveridge.
Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1998 ed.
First published in Latin (Basel, Switzerland, 1536); later in French.
———. John Calvin, Calvin’s Calvinism. Translated by Henry Cole.
Grandville, MI: Reformed Free Publishing Association, 1987.
———. Letters of John Calvin. Carlisle, PA: The Banner of Truth Trust,
1980.
———. Selected Works of John Calvin: Tracts and Letters. Henry
Beveridge and Jules Bonnet, eds. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1983.
Canons of Dort. Dordrecht, Holland, 1619.
Carson, D. A. Divine Sovereignty and Human Responsibility. Atlanta, GA:
John Knox Press, 1981.
———. “Reflections on Christian Assurance.” In Westminster Theological
Journal, Vol. 54.
———. The Difficult Doctrine of the Love of God. Wheaton, IL: Crossway
Books, 2000.
Carson, John L. and David W. Hall, eds. To Glorify and Enjoy God: A
Commemoration of the 350th Anniversary of the Westminster
Assembly. Carlisle, PA: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1994.
Chafer, Lewis Sperry. Systematic Theology. Dallas, TX: Dallas Seminary
Press, 1948.
Chantry, Walter D. Today’s Gospel: Authentic or Synthetic? Carlisle, PA:
The Banner of Truth Trust, 1970.
———. Predestination. Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed
Publishing Co., 1987.
Christian, John T. A History of the Baptists. Sunday School Board of the
Southern Baptist Convention, n. p., 1922.
Clark, Gordon H. The Biblical Doctrine of Man. Jefferson, MD: The Trinity
Foundation, 1984.
Clarke, Adam. Adam Clarke’s One-Volume Commentary. n. p.: Cook
Publications, 1989.
Codex Theodosianus. n. p., July 3, A.D. 321.
Cole, C. D. Definition of Doctrines. Swengle, PA: Bible Truth Depot, n.d.
Cole, Steven J. Total Depravity. Flagstaff AZ, 1999.
Congdon, Philip F. “Soteriological Implications of Five-point Calvinism.” In
Journal of the Grace Evangelical Society, Autumn 1995.
Cook, Frederic C., ed. The Bible Commentary. New York: Charles Scribner
Sons, 1895.
Coppes, Leonard J. Are Five Points Enough? The Ten Points of Calvinism.
Denver CO: self-published, 1980.
Cottret, Bernard. Calvin: A Biography. Translated by M. Wallace
McDonald. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing
Company, 2000.
Cox, S. Raymond. “What Caused God To Choose His People?” Self-
published paper, 1980.
Cross, John R. The Stranger on the Road to Emmaus. Olds, AB: Good Seed
International, 1997.
Cunningham, William. Historical Theology. Edmonton, AB: Still Waters
Revival Books, n. d.
———. The Reformers and the Theology of the Reformation. Carlisle, PA:
The Banner of Truth Trust, 1967.
Curtiss, George L. Arminianism in History. New York: Cranston and Curts,
1894.
Custance, Arthur C. The Sovereignty of Grace. Phillipsburg, NJ:
Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1979.
Daane, James. The Freedom of God. Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans
Publishing Co., 1973.
Dabney, Robert L. Discussions by Robert L. Dabney. C. R. Vaughn, ed.
Richmond, VA: Presbyterian Committee of Publication, 1980.
———. Systematic Theology. Carlisle, PA: The Banner of Truth Trust, 2nd
ed. 1985.
———. The Five Points of Calvinism. Harrisonburg, VA: Sprinkle
Publications, 1992.
Dagg, John L. Manual of Theology and Church Order. Harrisonburg, VA:
Sprinkle Publications, 1982.
d’Aubigné, J. H. Merle. History of the Reformations of the Sixteenth
Century. London: 1846; rev. ed. by Hartland Institute, Rapidan, VA, n. d.
Davis, Jimmie B. In The Berea Baptist Banner, February 5, 1995.
Dillow, Joseph C. The Reign of the Servant Kings: A Study of Eternal
Security and the Final Significance of Man. Haysville, NC: Schoettle
Publishing Co., 2nd ed., 1993.
Douty, Norman F. The Death of Christ. Irving, TX: Williams and Watrous
Publishing Company, n. d.
Duncan, Mark. The Five Points of Christian Reconstruction from the Lips of
Our Lord. Edmonton, AB: Still Waters Revival Books, 1990.
Durant, Will. The Story of Civilization. New York: Simon and Schuster,
1950.
Edinburgh Encyclopedia. Scotland: n. p., n. d.
Edwards, Jonathan. Freedom of the Will. Paul Ramsey, ed. New Haven,
CT: Yale University Press, 1957.
Ehler, Sidney Z., and John B. Morrall. Church and State Through the
 Centuries: A Collection of Historic Documents and Commentaries.
London:1954.
Engelsma, David J. A Defense of Calvinism as the Gospel. The Evangelism
Committee, Protestant Reformed Church, n. p., n. d.
———. Hyper-Calvinism and the Call of the Gospel. Grandville, MI:
Reformed Free Publishing Association, 1980.
———. “The Death of Confessional Calvinism in Scottish
Presbyterianism.” In The Standard Bearer, December 1, 1992.
Eusebius Pamphilius of Caesaria, advisor to Constantine. The Life of
Constantine. n. p., c. A.D. 335.
Fairbairn, Andrew M. The Philosophy of the Christian Religion. New York:
The MacMillan Co., 1923.
Farrar, Frederic W. A Manual of Christian Doctrine. New York: The
Alliance Press, n. d.
———. History of Interpretation. New York: E. P. Dutton and Co., 1886.
Fisher, George Park. History of the Christian Church. New York: Charles
Scribner’s Sons, 1902.
———. The Reformation. New York: Scribner, Armstrong and Co., 1873.
Fisk, Samuel. Calvinistic Paths Retraced. Raleigh, NC: Biblical Evangelism
Press, 1985.
———. Divine Sovereignty and Human Freedom. Neptune, NJ: Loizeaux
Brothers, 1973.
———. Election and Predestination. England: Penfold Book and Bible
House, 1997.
Foreman, Kenneth J. God’s Will and Ours. Richmond, VA: Outlook
Publishers, 1954.
Forster, Roger T. and V. Paul Marston. God’s Strategy in Human History.
Bloomington, MN: Bethany House Publishers, 1973.
Frend, W. H. C. The Rise of Christianity. Philadelphia, PA: Fortress Press,
1984.
Gay, David. Battle for the Church: 1517–1644. Lowestoft, UK: Brachus,
1997.
Geden, Alfred S. Comparative Religion. London: Society for Promoting
Christian Knowledge, 1917.
Geisler, Norman L. What Augustine Says. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book
House, 1982.
George, Timothy. Theology of the Reformers. Nashville, TN: Broadman
Press, 1988.
Gerstner, John H. A Primer on Free Will. Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and
Reformed Publishing Co., 1982.
———. Wrongly Dividing the Word of Truth: A Critique of
Dispensationalism. Brentwood, TN: Wolgemuth and Hyatt, Publishers,
Inc., 1991.
Gibbon, Edward. The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire.
New York: Modern Library, n. d.
Gill, John A. A Body of Doctrinal and Practical Divinity. Paris, AR: The
Baptist Standard Bearer, 1987.
———. The Cause of God and Truth. Paris, AR: The Baptist Standard
Bearer, 1992.
Good, Kenneth H. Are Baptists Calvinists? Rochester, NY: Backus Book
Publishers, 1988.
Goold, William H., ed. The Works of John Owen. Carlisle, PA: The Banner
 of Truth Trust, reprint 1978.
Grady, William P. Final Authority: A Christian’s Guide to the King James
Bible. Knoxville, TN: Grady Publications, 1993.
Gray, James M. Bible Problems Explained. Grand Rapids, MI: Fleming H.
Revell, 3rd. ed., 1913.
Gunn, Grover E. The Doctrines of Grace. Memphis, TN: Footstool
Publications, 1987.
Hanko, Herman. God’s Everlasting Covenant of Grace. Grandville, MI:
Reformed Free Publishing Association, 1988.
Hanko, Herman, Homer C. Hoeksema, and Gise J. Van Baren. The Five
Points of Calvinism. Grandville, MI: Reformed Free Publishing
Association, 1976.
Harkness, Georgia. John Calvin: The Man and His Ethics. Nashville, TN:
Abingdon Press, 1958.
Harrison, A. W. Arminianism. London: Duckworth, 1937.
Henderson, Henry F. Calvin in His Letters. London: J. M. Dent and Co.,
1909.
Hobbs, Herschel H. Fundamentals of our Faith. Nashville: Broadman,
1960.
Hodge, A. A. The Atonement. Memphis, TN: Footstool Publishers, 1987.
———. Outlines of Theology. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1972.
Hodge, Charles. A Commentary on Romans. Carlisle, PA: The Banner of
Truth Trust, 1972.
———. Systematic Theology. Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans
Publishing Co., 1986.
Hodges, Zane C. The Gospel Under Siege. Dallas, TX: Kerugma, Inc., 2nd
ed. 1992.
———. “The New Puritanism, Parts 2 and 3: Michael S. Horton: Holy Wars
With Unholy Weapons.” In Journal of the Grace Evangelical Society,
Spring 1994.
Hoeksema, Herman. God’s Eternal Good Pleasure. Edited and revised by
Homer C. Hoeksema. Grandville, MI: Reformed Free Publishing
Association, 1979.
Hoeksema, Homer. Reformed Dogmatics. Grandville, MI: Reformed Free
Publishing Association, 1966.
———. The Voice of Our Fathers. Grandville, MI: Reformed Free
Publishing Association, 1980.
Hoitenga, Dewey J. John Calvin and the Will: A Critique and Corrective.
Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1997.
Horne, C. Sylvester. A Popular History of the Free Churches. Cambridge,
UK: James Clarke and Co., 1903.
Horsch, John. History of Christianity. Scottsdale, PA: John Horsch, 1903.
Horton, Michael Scott. Putting Amazing Back Into Grace. Nashville, TN:
Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1991.
———, ed. Christ the Lord: The Reformation and Lordship Salvation.
Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1992.
Houck, Steven R. “God’s Sovereignty In Salvation.” The Evangelism
Committee, Protestant Reformed Church, South Holland, IL, n. d.
———. The Bondage of the Will. Lansing, IL: Peace Protestant Reformed
Church, n. d.
http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/wittenberg/wittenberg-
 luther.html.
Hughes, Philip. A History of the Church. London, 1934.
Hughes, Paul L. and James F. Larkin, eds. Tudor Royal Proclamations. New
Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1964.
Hulme, Edward Maslin. The Renaissance, the Protestant Reformation, and
the Catholic Revolution. New York: The Century Company, 1920.
Hunt, Dave and James White. Debating Calvinism: five points, two views.
Sisters, OR: Multnomah Publishers, 2004.
Hutchins, Robert Maynard and Mortimer J. Adler, eds. Great Books of the
Western World. Chicago: Encyclopaedia Brittanica, Inc., 1952.
IFCA International. What We Believe. www.ifca.org.
Ironside, H. A. Full Assurance. Chicago: Moody Press, 1937.
———. In the Heavenlies, Addresses on Ephesians. Neptune, NJ: Loizeaux
Brothers, 1937.
———. Lectures on the Epistle to the Romans. Neptune, NJ: Loizeaux
Brothers, 1926.
———. Timothy, Titus and Philemon. Neptune, NJ: Loizeaux Brothers, Inc.,
1990.
———. What’s the Answer? Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1944.
Jewett, Paul K. Election and Predestination. Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B.
Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1985 ed.
John Paul II, Sovereign Pontiff. Augustineum Hyponensem. Apostolic
Letter, August 28, 1986. Available at
www.cin.org/jp2.ency/augustin.html.
Johnson, Garrett P. “The Myth of Common Grace.” In The Trinity Review,
 March/April 1987.
Jones, R. Tudor. The Great Reformation. Downer’s Grove, IL: InterVarsity
Press, n. d.
Jones, William. The History of the Christian Church. Church History
Research and Archives, 5th ed. n. p., 1983.
Kane, Michael J., Ph.D. “Letters.” In Christianity Today, July 9, 2001.
Kennedy, D. James. Why I Believe. Dallas, TX: Word Publishing, 1980.
———. Why I Am a Presbyterian. Ft. Lauderdale, FL: Coral Ridge
Ministries, n. d.
Kennedy, John W. The Torch of the Testimony. Jacksonville, FL:
SeedSowers Christian Books Publishing House, 1963.
Keyser, Leander S. Election and Conversion. Burlington, IA: Lutheran
Literary Board, 1914.
Knowling, R. J. The Acts of the Apostles, The Expositor’s Greek New
Testament. New York: Dodd, Meade and Co., 1900.
Knox, John. Selected Writings of John Knox. Dallas, TX: Presbyterian
Heritage Publications, 1995.
Leith, John H. Introduction to the Reformed Tradition. Atlanta, GA: John
Knox Press, rev. ed. 1981.
Lockyer, Herbert. All the Doctrines of the Bible. Grand Rapids, MI:
Zondervan, 1964.
Luther, Martin. The Bondage of the Will. Translated by J. I. Packer and O.
R. Johnston. Grand Rapids, MI: Fleming H. Revell, 1957, 11th prtg.
1999.
———. A Short Explanation of Dr. Martin Luther’s Small Catechism: A
Handbook of Christian Doctrine. St. Louis, MO: Concordia Publishing
 House, 1971 ed.
MacArthur, John, Jr. Faith Works: The Gospel According to the Apostles.
Dallas, TX: Word Publishing, 1993.
———. Saved Without A Doubt–MacArthur Study Series. Colorado
Springs, CO: Chariot Victor Publishing, 1992.
———. The Gospel According to Jesus. Academie Books, Grand Rapids,
MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1988.
———. The Love of God. Dallas, TX: Word Publishing, 1996.
———. “The Love of God, Part 5, Romans 9”. Grace to You, 1995.
Audiotape.
______. The MacArthur Study Bible. Dallas, TX: Word Publishing, 1997.
Maclaren, Alexander. Expositions of Holy Scripture. London: Hodder and
Stoughton, n. d.
St. Justin, Martyr. The First and Second Apologies. Ancient Christian
Writers, No. 56. New York: Paulist Press, 1997.
Mathison, Keith A. Dispensationalism: Rightly Dividing the People of God?
Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1995.
McGarvey, J.W. Commentary on Acts. Lexington, KY: Transylvania Printing
and Publishing Co., 1863.
McGrath, Alister E. A Life of John Calvin. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell
Publishers, 1990.
McNeil, John T. Makers of the Christian Tradition. San Francisco: Harper
and Row, 1964.
———. The History and Character of Calvinism. Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 1966.
Milman, Henry H. History of Christianity. New York: A. C. Armstrong and
Son, 1886.
Milne, Bruce. Know the Truth. Downer’s Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press,
1982.
Moo, Douglas. The Epistle to the Romans. Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B.
Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1996.
Morey, Robert A. Studies in the Atonement. Southbridge, MA: Crowne
Publications, 1989.
Morgan, G. Campbell. The Westminster Pulpit. Grand Rapids, MI: Fleming
H. Revell, 1954.
Morrison, James. The Extent of the Atonement. London: Hamilton, Adams
and Co., 1882.
Mosheim, John Laurence. An Ecclesiastical History, Ancient and Modern.
Translated by Archibald MacLaine. Cincinnati: Applegate and Co., 1854.
Morton, Carl. In The Berea Baptist Banner, January 5, 1995.
Muir, Edwin. John Knox. London, 1920.
Muller, Richard A. Christ and the Decree. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book
House, 1988.
Mullins, Edgar Y. Baptist Beliefs. Valley Forge, PA: Judson, 4th ed. 1925.
Murray, Iain H. The Life of John Murray. Carlisle, PA: The Banner of Truth
Trust, 1984.
———. Spurgeon V. Hyper-Calvinism, Carlisle, PA: The Banner of Truth
Trust, 1997.
Murray, John. Redemption Accomplished and Applied. Grand Rapids, MI:
Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1955.
———. The Free Offer of the Gospel. n. p., n. d.
Murray, John and Ned B. Stonehouse. The Free Offer of the Gospel. n. p.,
n. d.
New Geneva Study Bible. R. C. Sproul, gen. ed. Nashville, TN: Thomas
Nelson Publishers, 1995.
Newman, Albert H. A Manual of Church History. Philadelphia, PA:
American Baptist Publication Society, 1933.
Nicoll, W. Robertson, ed. The Expositor’s Greek Testament. Grand Rapids,
MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., n. d.
Noll, Mark A., ed. The Princeton Theology. Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian
and Reformed Publishing Co., 1983.
North, Gary. Dominion and Common Grace. Tyler, TX: Institute for
Christian Economics, 1987.
Oosterman, Wm. “Take a Long Look at the Doctrines of Election.” Ottawa,
Canada: The Lord’s Library Publications, n. d. Available from Westboro
Baptist Church, Ottawa.
Ostling, Richard N. “The Second Founder of the Faith.” In Time,
September 29, 1986.
Owen, John. The Works of John Owen. Ed. William H. Goold. Carlisle, PA:
The Banner of Truth Trust, 3rd prtg., 1978.
Packer, J. I. Evangelism and the Sovereignty of God. Downer’s Grove, IL:
InterVarsity Press, 1961.
———. “The Love of God: Universal and Particular” In Still Sovereign, .
Thomas R. Schreiner & Bruce A. Ware, eds. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker
Books, 2000.
Page, T. E. The Acts of the Apostles, Greek Text with Explanatory Notes.
 New York: Macmillan and Co., 1897.
Palmer, Edwin H. the five points of calvinism. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker
Books, enlarged ed., 20th prtg., 1999.
Pettingill, William L. Bible Questions Answered. Just A Word Inc., 3rd ed.,
1935.
Phelps, Fred. “The Five Points of Calvinism.” In The Berea Baptist Banner,
February 5, 1990.
Pierson, Arthur T. The Believer’s Life: Its Past, Present, and Future Tenses.
London: Morgan and Scott, 1905.
Pike, Henry R. The Other Side of John Calvin. n. p.: Head to Heart, n. d.
Pink, Arthur W. Exposition of the Gospel of John. Grand Rapids, MI:
Zondervan Publishing House, 1975.
———. Gleanings in Exodus. Chicago: Moody Press, 1981.
———. The Doctrine of Election and Justification. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker
Book House, 1974.
———. The Doctrine of Salvation. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House,
1975.
———. The Holy Spirit. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1978.
———. The Sovereignty of God. 2nd Prtg. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book
House, 1986.
Pinnock, Clark H., ed. Grace Unlimited. Minneapolis, MN: Bethany
Fellowship, Inc., 1976.
Piper, John. The Justification of God: An Exegetical and Theological Study
of Romans 9:1–23. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2000.
———.TULIP:The Pursuit of God’s Glory in Salvation. Minneapolis, MN:
 Bethlehem Baptist Church, 2000.
———. “Are There Two Wills in God?” In Still Sovereign. Thomas R.
Schreiner & Bruce A. Ware, eds. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2000.
———. God’s Passion For His Glory, Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 1998.
———. The Legacy of Sovereign Joy: God’s Triumphant Grace in the Lives
of Augustine, Luther and Calvin. Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 2000.
Piper, John and Pastoral Staff. “TULIP: What We Believe about the Five
Points of Calvinism: Position Paper of the Pastoral Staff.” Minneapolis,
MN: Desiring God Ministries, 1997.
Plass, Ewald. What Luther Says. St. Louis, MO: Concordia Publishing
House, 1987.
Pollard, Alfred W., ed. Records of the English Bible. Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 1911.
Potter, G. R. and M. Greengrass. John Calvin. New York: St. Martin’s
Press, 1983.
Pusey, Edward B. What Is Of Faith As To Everlasting Punishment?
England: James Parker and Co., 1881.
Rice, N. L. God Sovereign and Man Free. Harrisonburg, VA: Sprinkle
Publications, 1985.
Robertson, Archibald Thomas. Word Pictures in the New Testament. New
York: Harper and Bros., 1930.
Robertson, J. M. Short History of Freethought. London, 1914.
Robinson, H. Wheeler. The Bible In Its Ancient and English Versions.
Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1940.
Rose, Ben Lacy. T.U.L.I.P.: The Five Disputed Points of Calvinism. Franklin,
TN: Providence House Publishers, 1996.
Ross, Tom. Abandoned Truth: The Doctrines of Grace. Xenia, OH:
Providence Baptist Church, 1991.
Rowley, H. H. The Biblical Doctrine of Election. Cambridge, UK:
Lutterworth Press, 1952.
Ruckman, Peter S. The History of the New Testament. Pensacola: Bible
Baptist Bookstore, 1982.
Rutherford, Samuel. Letters of Samuel Rutherford. Carlisle, PA: The
Banner of Truth Trust, 1996; 1st ed. 1664.
Ryle, John C. Expository Thoughts on the Gospel of John. London: Wm.
Hunt and Co., 1883.
Sanford, Dick. Predestination and Election. John R. Cross, ed. Self-
published monograph, n. d.
Schaff, Philip. History of the Christian Church. New York: Charles Scribner,
1910; reprinted Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.,
1959.
———. The Creeds of Christendom. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House,
1990.
Schreiner, Thomas R. and Bruce A. Ware, eds. Still Sovereign:
Contemporary Perspectives on Election, Foreknowledge and Grace.
Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2000.
———. The Grace of God, The Bondage of the Will. Grand Rapids, MI:
Baker Books, 1995.
Scofield, C. I. Scofield Bible Correspondence Course. Chicago, IL: Moody
Bible Institute, 1907.
Scott, Otto. The Great Christian Revolution. Windsor, NY: The Reformer
Library, 1994.
Seaton, W. J. The Five Points of Calvinism. Carlisle, PA:The Banner of Truth
Trust, 1970.
Sell, Alan P. F. The Great Debate. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House,
1982.
Sellers, C. Norman. Election and Perseverance. Haysville, NC: Schoettle
Publishing Co., 1987.
Shedd, William G. T. Calvinism: Pure and Mixed. Carlisle, PA:The Banner of
Truth Trust, 1999.
———. A History of Christian Doctrine. New York: Charles Scribner and
Co., 3rd ed. 1865.
Sheldon, Henry C. History of Christian Doctrine. 2nd ed. New York: Harper
and Bros., 1895.
Singer, C. Gregg. John Calvin: His Roots and Fruits. Nashville, TN:
Abingdon Press, 1989.
Smith, H. Maynard. Pre-Reformation England. New York: Russell and
Russell, 1963.
Smith, Preserved. The Age of the Reformation. New York, 1920.
Souter, Alexander. The Earliest Latin Commentaries on the Epistles of St.
Paul. n. p., 1927.
Spencer, Duane Edward. TULIP: The Five Points of Calvinism in the Light of
Scripture. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1979.
Sproul, R. C. “Assurance of Salvation.” Tabletalk. Ligonier Ministries, Inc.,
November 1989.
———. Chosen by God. Carol Stream, IL: Tyndale House Publishers, Inc.,
1986.
———. Faith Alone: The Evangelical Doctrine of Justification. Grand
 Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1995.
———. Grace Unknown. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1997.
———. The Holiness of God. Carol Stream, IL: Tyndale House Publishers,
Inc., 1993 ed.
Sproul, R. C., Jr. Almighty Over All. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House,
1999.
———. “The Authentic Message.” In Tabletalk. Ligonier Ministries, Inc.,
June 2001.
Spurgeon, Charles Haddon. “A Defense of Calvinism.” Edmonton, AB: Still
Waters Revival Books, n. d. Single-sermon booklet.
———. Autobiography of Charles H. Spurgeon. Philadelphia, PA: American
Baptist Society, n. d.
———. Free Will–A Slave. McDonough, GA: Free Grace Publications,
1977.
———. “God’s Will and Man’s Will,” No. 442. Newington: Metropolitan
Tabernacle; sermon delivered Sunday morning, March 30, 1862.
———. New Park Street Pulpit. London: Passmore and Alabaster. Volume
6.
———. Sermons of C. H. Spurgeon. Available from Pilgrim Publications,
Pasadena, TX, n. d.
———. Spurgeon at His Best. Tom Carter, ed. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker
Book House, 1988.
———. Spurgeon’s Sermons, Vols 1 and 2. “The Peculiar Sleep of the
Beloved.” Grand Rapids, MI: 1999.
———.The Best Bread: Sermons Preached in 1887. New York: Funk and
Wagnalls, 1891.
———. The Soul Winner. Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing
Co., 1963.
———. The Treasury of the New Testament. Grand Rapids, MI:
Zondervan, 1950.
———, ed. Exposition of the Doctrine of Grace. Pasadena, CA: Pilgrim
Publications, n. d.
Steele, David N. and Curtis C. Thomas. The Five Points of Calvinism.
Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1963.
“Straight Talk Live.” KPXQ, Phoenix, AZ, August 11, 2000. Audiotape
AT073, available through The Berean Call, PO Box 7019, Bend, OR
97708.
Strong, Augustus H. Systematic Theology. Valley Forge, PA: Judson Press,
1907.
Storms, C. Samuel. Chosen for Life. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House,
1987.
Talbot, Kenneth G. and W. Gary Crampton. Calvinism, Hyper-Calvinism
and Arminianism. Edmonton, AB: Still Waters Revival Books, 1990.
Telford, Andrew. Subjects of Sovereignty. Acworth, GA: Harvest Time
Ministries, 1980.
The Opinions of the Remonstrants. Presented at Synod of Dort,
Dordrecht, Holland, 1619.
The Register of the Company of Pastors of Geneva in the Time of Calvin.
Translated and edited by Philip E. Hughes. Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B.
Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1966.
Thomas, W. H. Griffith. The Principles of Theology. London: Longmans,
Green and Co., 1930.
Thompson, Bard. Humanists and Reformers: A History of the Renaissance
and Reformation. Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.,
1996.
Thompson, Bob. “The 5 Points of Calvin’s Doctrine of Predestination.”
Self-published monograph, 4056 Skyline Rd., Carlsbad CA 92008, n. d.
Torrey, Reuben A. The Importance and Value of Proper Bible Study.
Chicago: Moody Press, 1921.
Tozer, A. W. “The Sovereignty of God.” Camphill, PA: Christian
Publications, 1997. Audiotape.
———. The Knowledge of the Holy. San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1961.
Underwood, A. C. A History of the English Baptists. n. p.: The Baptist
Union of Great Britian and Ireland, 1947.
Unger, Merrill F. Unger’s Bible Dictionary. Chicago: Moody Press, 1969.
Vance, Laurence M. The Other Side of Calvinism, rev. ed. Pensacola, FL:
Vance Publications, 1999.
  Verduin, Leonard. The Reformers and Their Stepchildren. Sarasota, FL:
Christian Hymnary Publishers, 1991.
Verhovek, Sam Howe. “Cardinal Defends a Jailed Bishop Who Warned
Cuomo on Abortion.” In The New York Times, February 1, 1990.
Vincent, Marvin R. Word Studies in the New Testament. New York:
Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1924.
Voltaire. The Works of Voltaire. New York: E. R. Dumont, 1901.
Wallace, Ronald S. Calvin, Geneva, and the Reformation. Grand Rapids,
MI: Baker Book House, 1990.
Walker, Williston. John Calvin: The Organizer of Reformed Protestantism.
New York: Schocken Books, 1969.
Ware, Bruce A. “Effective Calling and Grace.” In Still Sovereign, Thomas R.
Schreiner & Bruce A. Ware, eds. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2000.
Warfield, Benjamin B. Calvin and Augustine. Samuel G. Craig, ed.
Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1956.
———. “Five Common Questions on the Doctrine of Election Simply and
Clearly Answered.” In The Baptist Examiner. November 20, 1993.
Wendel, Francois. Calvin: Origins and Development of His Religious
Thought. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1997.
Wesley, John. Sermons on Several Occasions. New York: J. Emory and B.
Waugh, for the Methodist Episcopal Church at the Conference Office,
14 Crosby St., 1831.
West, David S. The Baptist Examiner, March 18, 1989.
Westblade, Donald J. “Divine Election in the Pauline Structure.” In Still
Sovereign, Thomas R. Schreiner & Bruce A. Ware, eds. Grand Rapids,
MI: Baker Books, 2000.
Westminster Confession of Faith. London, 1643.
White, James R. The Potter’s Freedom: A Defense of the Reformation and
a Rebuttal of Norman Geisler’s Chosen But Free. Amityville, NY: Calvary
Press Publishing, 2000.
White, W. R. Baptist Distinctives. n. p.: Sunday School Board, SBC, 1946.
Wilkin, Robert N. “Ligonier National Conference.” In The Grace Report,
July 2000.
———. “When Assurance Is Not Assurance.” In Journal of the Grace
Evangelical Society, Autumn 1997.
Wilmouth, David O. The Baptist Examiner, September 16, 1989.
Wilson, Joseph M. “How is the Atonement Limited?” In The Baptist
 Examiner, December 9, 1989.
———. “Soul Winning.” In The Baptist Examiner, February 15, 1992.
Wright, R. K. McGregor. No Place for Sovereignty: What’s Wrong with
Freewill Theism. Downer’s Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1996.
Wuest, Kenneth S. Ephesians and Colossians in the Greek New Testament.
Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1953.
Yarbrough, Robert W. “Divine Election in the Gospel of John.” In Still
Sovereign. Thomas R. Schreiner & Bruce A. Ware, eds. Grand Rapids,
MI: Baker Books, 2000.
Other Books by Dave Hunt
• The Seduction of Christianity (with T. A. McMahon)

• Beyond Seduction: A Return to Biblical Christianity

• When Will Jesus Come? (formerly How Close Are We?)

• Death of a Guru (with Rabi Maharaj)

• Whatever Happened to Heaven?

• Peace, Prosperity and the Coming Holocaust

• The Cult Explosion

• A Cup of Trembling: Jerusalem and Bible Prophecy

• Global Peace and the Rise of Antichrist

• In Defense of the Faith

• A Woman Rides the Beast: The Roman Catholic Church and the
Last Days

• Mind Invaders

• Sanctuary of the Chosen

• Y2K: A Reasoned Response to Mass Hysteria

• Occult Invasion: The Subtle Seduction of the World and the

Church

• The God Makers (with Ed Decker)

• The New Spirituality (with T. A. McMahon)

• An Urgent Call to a Serious Faith

• Debating Calvinism (with James White)

• Seeking and Finding God: In Search of the True Faith

• A Calvinist’s Honest Doubts Resolved: by Reason and God’s

Amazing Grace

• Judgment Day! Islam, Israel, and the Nations

• Yoga and The Body of Christ: What Position Should Christians

Hold?
About The Berean Call
The Berean Call (TBC) is a nonprofit,
tax-exempt corporation which exists to:

ALERT believers in Christ to unbiblical teachings and practices impacting the church

EXHORT believers to give greater heed to biblical discernment and truth regarding teachings and
practices being currently promoted in the church

SUPPLY believers with teaching, information, and materials which will encourage the love of God’s
truth, and assist in the development of biblical discernment

MOBILIZE believers in Christ to action in obedience to the scriptural command to “earnestly

contend for the faith” (Jude 3)

IMPACT the church of Jesus Christ with the necessity for trusting
the Scriptures as the only rule for faith, practice, and a life pleasing to God

A free monthly newsletter, THE BEREAN CALL, may be received

by sending a request to: PO Box 7019, Bend, OR 97708; or by calling

1-800-937-6638

To register for free email updates, to access our digital archives, and to
order a variety of additional resource materials online, visit us at:

www.thebereancall.org

BEND OREGON