Home » Posts tagged 'TULIP'
Tag Archives: TULIP
A New Alternative List to the Points of Calvinism (Part Three)
The second point of Calvinism is “unconditional election,” and part two of this series said that election is not predetermined. Instead, God elects according to His foreknowledge (1 Pet 1:2). God knows who will believe in Him and elects them before the foundation of the world. Calvinists get unconditional election out of this by changing the meaning of foreknowledge. They say that term means “forelove,” in the sense that “Adam knew his wife Eve” (Gen 4:1) and Joseph did not ‘know’ Mary until after Jesus was born (Matt 1:25).
Turning “foreknowledge” into “forelove” is one of many examples of how Calvinism contorts the meaning of words to get its five points. It really is tell-tale. This stretching of the truth does not comport with the plain meaning of the text. Changing the meaning of “foreknowledge” opens the door to all sorts of new doctrine not taught in scripture. Rather than knowing who would believe, God makes only certain people to believe and others not. It becomes His will to damn people to Hell rather than knowing who wouldn’t believe. This is a big change in the reading of scripture almost entirely through this manipulation of one word.
The first three points of Calvinism are (1) total depravity, (2) unconditional election, and then (3) limited atonement. I named instead the first two (1) each person’s spiritual bankruptcy and (2) God’s election according to his foreknowledge.
3. LIMITED ATONEMENT
More than Atonement
“Limited atonement” is the historical term for this third point. As a bit of an aside to its meaning, I believe that atonement is an Old Testament concept. Christ’s death was more than atonement. His death and shed blood did more than atone for sin. Jesus’ work on the cross removed, took away, or washed away sin. For instance, Israel had a day every year called, Yom Kippur, which means, “Day of Atonement.” This spoke of something that occurred through the blood of animals, which could not take away sin.
In the context of the point of Calvinism, Calvinists say that God atoned only for the sins of the elect. They mean that Jesus died and shed His blood only for the elect. Calvinists don’t take this from any statement in scripture. The Bible doesn’t teach it. It’s what some might call a logical leap that reads like the following paragraph (I’m going to indent it to indicate it is not my position, so as not to confuse).
The Fit Into Calvinism
No spiritually dead person can believe unless God enables them through regeneration. God regenerates those He selects for salvation before the foundation of the world. Since He predetermined whom He would regenerate, Jesus only died for those He would save. He didn’t die for those He wouldn’t save or else that would save them. Therefore, He limits the atonement to only the elect.
Calvinists would say that God gets all the glory for the salvation, because He did everything, start to finish. Some go so far to say that nothing happens, not a single molecule moves, without God causing it. Calvinists would say that if God is sovereign, then He does it all, what they call “monergism.” Again, some Calvinists take this to the extent that if God isn’t doing it all, then man adds something in the nature of works to grace, which is unproveable and false.
Instead of teaching limited atonement, scripture says that God provides an
3. AVAILABLE SUBSTITIONARY SACRIFICE BY CHRIST
Some Calvinists won’t use “limited atonement,” which is a negative sounding descriptor, but “particular redemption.” Even for me, I could embrace something called “particular redemption,” depending on how it’s explained.
I’ve never seen a four point Calvinist reject any other point than this one, perhaps the hardest for Calvinists to believe. It’s a reason why, I believe, for the replacement terminology, “particular redemption.” To make it easier, I also hear Calvinists say that everyone limits the atonement or else God would save everyone. The limitation doesn’t read, however, as though Christ died only for the elect. At worst, God limits the effects of His death — redemption — to only those who believe, or only to the elect. But the latter is not what Calvinists say or mean about or by limited atonement.
Logical Leap
Like with unconditional election, Calvinists take a logical leap with limited atonement. They do it by framing the argument in a way that only their position can stand. It’s however, not how scripture frames this salvation doctrine. Calvinists say that if Christ wasn’t redeeming with His work on the cross then no one is saved. Since He did save, then His cross work must redeem everyone. The Bible does not state this line of thinking or reasoning. At most, it is an inference Calvinists make from scripture, however, one contradicted by verses in the Bible.
Redemption comes through Jesus’ death alone, but only to those who believe in Him. When scripture says that Jesus died for everyone, it does not mean that He provided redemption for everyone. It means He paid the penalty for everyone, but no one gets the benefits of His death without faith. The inference claimed by Calvinists arises from this philosophy of Calvinism already expressed in this series that does not represent a biblical doctrine of salvation.
Availability of Salvation
If Christ died only for the elect, then how could the Apostle Paul write what he did in 1 Corinthians 15:1-3?
1 Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand; 2 By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain. 3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures.
Paul declared the gospel when he arrived in Corinth. Not everyone received, but those who did receive it (verses 1 and 2) were “saved” (verse 2). However, the message he preached to an unsaved audience, not all of which received it, was “that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures.” By “the scriptures,” perhaps Paul was referring to Isaiah 53:5:
But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed.
This teaches Christ’s substitutionary death. If someone believes that Christ died only for the elect, is he telling the truth in preaching that Christ died for the sins of that audience? This was the typical gospel preaching of Paul and it included, “Christ died for you.” I continue to preach that to everyone and mean it.
Scripture Not Limited Atonement
The combination of many different verses proclaim that Christ’s substitutionary sacrifice is available for everyone.
Romans 5:6, “For when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly.”
2 Corinthians 5:14-15, “14 For the love of Christ constraineth us; because we thus judge, that if one died for all, then were all dead: 15 And that he died for all, that they which live should not henceforth live unto themselves, but unto him which died for them, and rose again.
Hebrews 2:9, “But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man.”
2 Peter 2:1, “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.”
1 John 2:1-2, “1 My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous: 2 And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.”
I agree with the truth from Jesus “that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life” (Jn 3:15). Jesus would preach that message to unbelievers, many of whom never went on to believe (John 12:46). The system of Calvinism clashes with obvious New Testament teaching.
Christ Died for Everyone
Christ died for all men in that His substitutionary sacrifice was available to everyone, if they would believe on Him. And, everyone is without excuse as to believing on Him (cf. Rom 1:20). It would sound like a legitimate excuse from someone, if he said, “Christ didn’t die for me,” if that’s what really happened.
When Jesus explains why people don’t receive salvation, He doesn’t say what Calvinism says: not predetermined, didn’t get irresistible grace, and He didn’t die for them. No, He says things like we see in Luke 13:3, “Except ye repent.” Or, He says the culprit is hard, thorny, or stony hearts (Matt 13). Explaining even apostates, Peter says ‘they deny the Lord that bought them.’ He bought them and they still denied Him. Calvinistic inferences contradict the plain teaching of scripture. Explicit statements outdo, undo, and exceed inferences and even something greater than inferences, implications. If you’re a believer, you’ve got to go with what God says. That’s your doctrine.
Faux Intellectualism
These opaque, murky points of Calvin should recede in the face of unadulterated true statements of God. Their continued embrace seems a desperate grasp of faux intellectualism. The following may trigger some, but it also sounds to me like a kind of virtue signal. It lays out an intricate contraption of theology impressive in the nature of Rube Goldberg. It takes just those types of twists and turns to end a pristine quest of human ingenuity.
The points of Calvinism wilt like day old salad in the face of not many mighty or noble are called, because to wrap your brain around Calvinism requires egg headed genius orbiting in an intellectual satellite thousands of miles above earth. Calvinism has the mighty and noble on speed dial. The foolishness of preaching is not incomprehension and contradiction.
More to Come
A New Alternative List to the Points of Calvinism
When I listen to a presentation of the points of Calvinism, very often my mind goes to alternative scriptural points to replace them. I think of what the Bible says about the point and I can’t agree with it. Usually I go into a hearing of Calvinist teaching with a desire to agree and believe. Actual scripture gets in the way of my agreeing and believing with the points of Calvinism.
Scripture Challenges Calvinism
Not Biblical
Sure, the points of Calvinism persuade Calvinists. They claim it’s scripture that does it. I don’t see it in scripture, even with my trying to become as persuaded. Calvinism doesn’t do it for me.
What I want to do with this piece is to say aloud what I’m thinking when I hear Calvinism presented. I can’t write everything on it. Hopefully what I’ll do is write down the kind of content I’m thinking when someone espouses Calvinism. My opinion is that Calvinists have their Calvinistic position to defend, much like someone from some religion tries to protect his religion when confronted with scripture. I await presentations that just expose scripture, not read into it.
When I say, the points of Calvinism, I mean what people call, the five points of Calvinism, also known by the acronym, TULIP. All five points of Calvinism interconnect, depend on each other and feed off of each other. I understand when someone says he is one, two, three, or four point, if not five point. To take less than five, someone disconnects one or more from the group. Because of this interconnection, I reject all five points.
Calvinism Unnecessary
I get how someone could question my rejecting every point, since two of them especially make some sense scripturally if taken out of the context of all five points as a group. I mean “total depravity” and “perseverance of the saints.” I could explain those two as the truth, but I don’t believe that Calvinists would agree with that explanation. I’d rather just reject all five points and start over from scratch.
God won’t judge me for not agreeing with a point of Calvin. It’s more important that any one of us believe what God said in His Word about the doctrine of salvation.
Calvinists sometimes attack those who disagree with their position, representing them as not believing certain biblical doctrines. They can easily turn their foes into people who don’t believe in God’s sovereignty or who do believe in some form of salvation by works. I deny these charges. Calvinists often allow these points to define them. The points become consuming and weave into many other of their other doctrines. They often treat those who reject Calvinism as irretrievably messed up in their beliefs.
What should someone make of the points of Calvinism?
TOTAL DEPRAVITY
The Calvinists at Ligonier Ministries say this:
When it comes to total depravity, the inability of which we speak is first and foremost moral inability. In our fallenness, though we have a will and can discern the good, we lack the ability to choose rightly, to exercise our wills in the proper direction of absolute dependence on God and submission to His will.
Total Inability
Total depravity sounds scriptural. The two terms seem right, so what’s wrong? By total depravity though, Calvinists mean, as you can read above, “total inability.”
“Total inability” doesn’t bother me either. It comes down to what Calvinists say about total depravity and then total inability.
Personally I won’t use the words “total inability” because I know Calvinists use them. They are not words from scripture. However, I read lines in the Bible that say the equivalent of total inability. I even like the two words as a description of a lost man’s condition. When Calvinists use those words, they are taking them much further than scripture.
The argument for Calvinists says that men are unable to respond to God for salvation. Men are dead and since they’re dead, they don’t have the capacity at all to receive Jesus Christ. Everything so far I agree with, so what’s the problem? Where Calvinists get into trouble here is their solution to man’s deadness and his inability to respond.
Regeneration Precedes Faith
Many Calvinists teach that God must intervene in the way of regenerating a man so that he then can respond. People have called this, “regeneration precedes faith.” This is not how scripture reads about the doctrine of regeneration. The Bible is clear and plain in many places that the opposite is true. Faith precedes regeneration.
It’s true that men cannot respond. They are dead and they cannot seek after God. Naturally they do not. Something Calvinists get right here is that God must do something to allow or cause someone to believe in Him. Men don’t just on their own stir up their desire to believe in Jesus Christ. God does make the first movement toward man and that’s what scripture teaches. Without God’s working, no one could believe in Jesus Christ.
The other points of Calvinism also describe what Calvinists think of total depravity. A man is so unable to respond to God that God must intervene in the way of what Calvinists call “irresistible grace.” God apparently works in an irresistible way for a man to receive Jesus Christ. These two ideas go together in Calvinism, total depravity and irresistible grace. If God’s grace is irresistible, then also God must unconditionally choose whom He will save and whom He won’t.
God Uses Revelation
The way scripture reads is that even though man is unable to respond to salvation and can’t believe on His own, God does work in his life .God does initiate salvation. Man cannot believe in Jesus Christ without God’s initiation and without His enabling. What God uses is His revelation. He uses man’s conscience, His own providence in history, and the Word of God that is written in man’s heart.
If a person will respond to the general revelation of God, we see in scripture that God ensures he will also get His special revelation, which is God’s Word. Every man is without excuse regarding salvation, because God and His grace appear to all men. Through God’s working through His Word in men’s hearts, they can then respond and receive Jesus Christ. Most do not believe, but the ability from God is available to every man through God’s revelation in order to believe.
An illustration of the power of God that enables a dead man to receive Jesus Christ is Jesus’ raising of Lazarus from the dead. The Word of God is powerful, so the words, Come forth, allowed Lazarus to rise. It allowed for Lazarus to come. This also fits with what Paul wrote in Romans 10:17 that faith comes by hearing the Word of God. Not everyone who hears the Word of God will believe. Yet, a man can believe because of the Word of God.
Salvation Is Of the LORD
You can embrace man’s inability and deadness. It’s true. This does not require a solution of irresistible grace and unconditional election. Jonah was right when he said, “Salvation is of the LORD” (Jonah 2:9). Salvation centers on God. This Calvinistic view of inability does not square with scripture. It is unnecessary for giving God the credit for salvation. I would contend that what scripture actually says is what gives God glory, not an exaggeration or manipulation of what God said.
Evangelists need to preach the Word of God as their spiritual weapon to pull down strongholds (2 Cor 10:3-5). They partly do that because of the inability and deadness of their audience. True preachers proclaim what God said. That’s all that will work for the salvation of men’s souls. It’s like what Paul wrote to Timothy in 2 Timothy 3:15:
And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
The Holy Scriptures are able to make thee wise unto salvation, not some mystical regeneration that precedes faith.
Spiritual Emptiness and Bankruptcy
The deadness that Ephesians 2:1 and 5 address might parallel to physical deadness. Someone dead can’t hear. I’ve noticed that when I’ve attended funerals. Men should not turn spiritual death into something so dead that not even the Word of God is powerful enough to allow the dead man to respond unto salvation. Scripture is the way, not an invented mystical and extra-scriptural experience.
God is sovereign. He does it His way. His way is not a novel innovation, which is what this regeneration-precedes-faith is.
Let’s just call it “spiritual deadness,” “spiritual blindness,” or even “spiritually empty or bankrupt” in fitting with Matthew 5:3. I’m fine with “total depravity,” but knowing what Calvinists mean by that, I won’t use those words. This is part of starting from scratch. Everyone sins and falls short of the glory of God. God’s revelation also reaches to those lost souls enabling everyone also to believe, not just those predetermined to do so.
More to Come
Calvinism, Unconditional Election and Baptismal Regeneration
Did you know that there is a connection between the heresy of the baptismal regeneration of infants and unconditional election and reprobation in Calvinism? In the chapter “Calvinism is Augstinianism,” by Kenneth Wilson, in the book Calvinism: A Biblical and Theological Critique, ed. David L. Allen & Steve W. Lemke (Nashville, TN: B&H Academic, 2022), Wilson notes:
The major influence on Augustine’s AD 412 reversion to his prior deterministic Manichaean interpretations of Scripture was the arrival of Pelagius and Caelestius near his North African home in late AD 411. Augustine previously admitted (AD 405) he did not know why infant baptism was practiced (Quant.80). But the conflict with Caelestius and Pelagius forced him to rethink the church’s infant baptismal tradition and precipitated his reversion to his pagan DUPED [Divine Unilateral Predetermination of Eternal Destinies, that is, unconditional election].26 Caelestius had argued that infants did not receive baptism for salvation from sin but only for inheritance of the kingdom. Augustine’s polemical response to Caelestius in AD 412 was logical: (1) Infants are baptized by church tradition; (2) water baptism is for forgiveness of sin and reception of the Holy Spirit; (3) some dying infants are rushed by their Christian parents to the bishop for baptism but die before baptism occurs, while other infants born of prostitutes are found abandoned on the streets by a church virgin who rushes them to the baptismal font where the bishop baptizes them; (4) these infants have no “will” and no control over whether or not they are baptized to receive the Holy Spirit to become Christians. Therefore, God must unilaterally and unconditionally predetermine which infants are saved by baptism and which are eternally damned without baptism (unconditional election).27 God’s election must be unconditional since infants have no personal sin, no merit, no good works, no functioning free will (incognizant due to the inability to understand at their age), and therefore, no choice.
In his next work that same year, Augustine concluded if this is true for infants, then unbaptized adults also have no choice or free will (Sp. et litt.54–56). The Holy Spirit was received in water baptism, transforming the person into a Christian with a free will. Since humans have no free will before baptism, God must unilaterally choose who will be saved and infuse faith into those persons. Augustine taught even when “ministers prepared for giving baptism to the infants, it still is not given, because God does not choose [those infants for salvation]” (persev.31). Infant baptism became the impetus for Augustine’s novel theology when he reinterpreted that church tradition and reached a logical conclusion. By doing this he abandoned over three hundred years of church teaching on free will. According to the famous scholar Jaroslav Pelikan, Augustine departed from traditional Christian theology by incorporating his prior pagan teachings and thereby developed inconsistencies in his new anthropology and theology of grace, especially his “idiosyncratic theory of predestination.”28[1]
So the Calvinist doctrine of unconditional election and reprobation is connected to Augustine’s doctrine of baptismal regeneration of infants and the damnation of all infants who are not regenerated in baptism. Since the infants cannot choose whether or not they will be baptized and receive forgiveness through baptism, their eternal salvation and damnation is by God’s will alone; they have no free will to receive Christ or reject Him, as in the large majority of modern Calvinists who follow Jonathan Edwards in his work against the freedom of the will. The infants that are tormented forever because they never were baptized are unconditionally reprobated, and the infants in paradise because they were baptized are the unconditionally elect. Since this is (allegedly) true for infants, it must be true for everyone else as well—eternal salvation and damnation is by God’s unconditional choice alone—an Augustinian innovation in Christendom which was reproduced by John Calvin and the Reformed tradition. (Of course, John Calvin also believed in baptismal regeneration.)
Let me add that the book Calvinism: A Biblical and Theological Critique, ed. David L. Allen and Steve W. Lemke is valuable for mature Christians and church leaders, and it contains many valuable and Biblically sound criticisms of Calvinism. However, there are a diversity of viewpoints represented in the book, including not just non-Calvinist Baptists who still believe in eternal security, for example, but full-blown actual Arminians such as Wesleyans who affirm the terrible false teaching that true believers can be eternally lost. Because some chapters in the book are written by actual Arminians, I would not recommend the book for new Christians who might over-react against Calvinism and adopt Arminian heresies. Pastors or other mature Christians who are simply not going to become Arminian can gain a good deal of profit from the book.
–TDR
26 Wilson, 285. See also Chadwick, Early Christian Thought, 110–11.
27 Augustine, Pecc.mer.1.29–30. In contrast, ca. AD 200, Tertullian had rejected infant baptism, stating one should wait until personal faith was possible (De bapt.18).
28 Jaroslav Pelikan, The Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine, vol. 1, The Emergence of the Catholic Tradition (100–600) (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1975), 278–327, quotation at 325.
[1] Kenneth Wilson, “Calvinism Is Augustinianism,” in Calvinism: A Biblical and Theological Critique, ed. David L. Allen and Steve W. Lemke (Nashville, TN: B&H Academic, 2022), 222–223.
Links to Amazon.com are affiliate links.
God Does NOT Love Everyone? An Error of Hyper-Calvinism, part 3 of 3
Is it true that God does NOT love everyone? Hyper-Calvinism says “yes,” but Scripture says “no!” In part 1 and part 2 of this series, I summarized the first portions of my study God Does Not Love Everyone: A Hyper-Calvinist Error. This final part will summarize the final portion of God Does Not Love Everyone: A Hyper-Calvinist Error, to which readers are encouraged to refer for more information.
Hyper-Calvinism Employs Exegetical and Logical Fallacies
When Arguing God Does Not Love the Non-Elect:
Texts on God’s Hatred
Hyper-Calvinism may contend that some passages of Scripture prove that God does not love the non-elect. For example, the Bible states:
As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated. (Romans 9:13)
The foolish shall not stand in thy sight: thou hatest all workers of iniquity. (Psalm 5:5)
5 The LORD trieth the righteous: but the wicked and him that loveth violence his soul hateth. 6 Upon the wicked he shall rain snares, fire and brimstone, and an horrible tempest: this shall be the portion of their cup. 7 For the righteous LORD loveth righteousness; his countenance doth behold the upright.” (Psalm 11:5-7)
These passages clearly teach that God hates the wicked. But they do not say that God does NOT love them at the same time. Jehovah is perfectly capable of having love in one sense for a wicked person while hating him in a different sense. Indeed, Psalm 5:5 states that God hates “all” workers of iniquity, so even the elect, before they believe, are hated by God in one sense while being eternally loved by Him in a different sense. If God can love and hate the elect at the same time in different senses, He is perfectly capable of doing the same for the non-elect.
Furthermore, Romans 9:13 is not even about the individuals Jacob and Esau. Paul quotes Malachi 1:2-3, which speaks of God’s special blessings on the nation of Israel, blessings withheld from the nation of Edom. Consider Malachi 1:1-5:
1 The burden of the word of the LORD to Israel by Malachi. 2 I have loved you, saith the LORD. Yet ye say, Wherein hast thou loved us? Was not Esau Jacob’s brother? saith the LORD: yet I loved Jacob, 3 And I hated Esau, and laid his mountains and his heritage waste for the dragons of the wilderness. 4 Whereas Edom saith, We are impoverished, but we will return and build the desolate places; thus saith the LORD of hosts, They shall build, but I will throw down; and they shall call them, The border of wickedness, and, The people against whom the LORD hath indignation for ever. 5 And your eyes shall see, and ye shall say, The LORD will be magnified from the border of Israel. (Malachi 1:1-5)
Romans 9:13 never denies that God loved Esau—God is able to love sinners in one sense while hating them in another. More fundamentally, Romans 9:13 is not even about the individual people Jacob and Esau at all, except insofar as they are the progenitors of the nations of Israel and Edom.
These passages of Scripture are simply taken out of context by hyper-Calvinism.
Hyper-Calvinism Employs Exegetical and Logical Fallacies
When Arguing God Does Not Love the Non-Elect:
Texts on God’s Special Love
Advocates of hyper-Calvinism can also argue that Scripture speaks of God’s love in passages that limit His love to the elect. There are indeed passages of Scripture that show that Jehovah has a special love for His believing people. However, this no more denies that God loves the non-elect than does the fact that a Christian husband has a special love for his wife proves that the husband hates everyone else. Hyper-Calvinism needs texts of Scripture that affirm that God does not love some people, not passages that say God does love some people. There simply are no such texts in God’s Word.
Hyper-Calvinism Makes Further Exegetical
and Historical Fallacies
Hyper-Calvinism also makes other fallacious exegetical arguments. Indeed, hyper-Calvinism does not even accurately represent the teaching of John Calvin. Calvin, speaking about the rich young ruler in Mark 10:21, wrote: “Jesus beholding him, loved him [Mark 10:21]. … [A]ll the creatures of God, without exception, are the objects of his love. … God is sometimes said to love those whom he does not approve or justify … Christ … love[d] a man [like the rich young ruler] who was proud and a hypocrite, while nothing is more hateful to God than these two vices[.] (John Calvin and William Pringle, Commentary on a Harmony of the Evangelists Matthew, Mark, and Luke, vol. 2 [Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software, 2010], 398–399.)
Thus, the teaching of hyper-Calvinism that God does not love every individual grossly misinterprets Scripture while also misinterpreting history. Even John Calvin did not teach the hyper-Calvinist notion that God loves only the elect. Since neither the Bible, nor even John Calvin, taught this false idea, you should not teach or believe it either. Reject such a slander on the character of God and recognize that “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). Please read God Does Not Love Everyone: A Hyper-Calvinist Error for more information.
–TDR
God does NOT love everyone? A Hyper-Calvinist Error, part 2 of 3
Is it true that God does NOT love everyone? Hyper-Calvinism says “yes!” Scripture says “no!” In part 1 of 3 in this series, I summarized the first portion of my recent composition God Does Not Love Everyone: A Hyper-Calvinist Error. John 3:16, Mark 10:21, and 1 John 2:2 refute the hyper-Calvinist idea that God loves only the elect. Scripture is plain that God loves the entire world-every single person.
If Hyper-Calvinists Were Right,
Then Christians Should Not Love Their Enemies
Christians should be like God. If God loves every person, then they should love all men. If God has nothing but an everlasting hatred for the non-elect, then they should strive with all their might to purge out any love that they have for lost sinners from their bosoms and have nothing but an eternal and everlasting hatred for them, (allegedly) like God. However, the Lord Jesus taught:
43 Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy. 44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; 45 That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust. 46 For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same? 47 And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? do not even the publicans so? 48 Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect. (Matthew 5:43-48)
Christians must love their enemies because God loves His enemies. When they love their wicked, unregenerate, Christ-and-Christian hating enemies, they are being like their Father in heaven. The Sermon on the Mount does not say, “Love your elect enemies and bless the elect when they curse and hate you. If the non-elect do it, though, show eternal hatred to them.” Believers must “increase and abound in love one toward another, and toward all men” (1 Thessalonians 3:12-13) because God loves all men, not the elect alone.
The Quran Agrees with Hyper-Calvinism,
but the Bible does Not
Hyper-Calvinists need specific passages that teach God does NOT love the majority of the world that rejects Christ and is eternally lost. It would not have been hard for God to include such statements in the Bible. After all, the Quran is filled with them. For example:
Q 2:276 Allah hath blighted usury and made almsgiving fruitful. Allah loveth not the impious and guilty.
Q 3:32 Say: Obey Allah and the messenger. But if they turn away, lo! Allah loveth not the disbelievers (in His guidance).
Q 3:57 And as for those who believe and do good works, He will pay them their wages in full. Allah loveth not wrong-doers.
The Quran is full of such statements-when I went through the Quran from cover to cover as part of my preparation for my debate with the Muslim apologist Shabir Ally I found the seemingly constant drum-beat of Allah’s lack of love for this group and that group a sharp contrast with the teaching of God’s Word, the Bible.
While the idea that God does not love unbelievers is all over the Quran, the number of statements in holy Scripture such as “God does not love person X” or “God does not love people like Y” are equal in number to the statements such as “Christ did not die for person X” or “Christ did not die for group Y”–namely, zero. Both limited atonement and the hyper-Calvinist doctrine of God’s lack of love for the vast majority of mankind are completely absent from Scripture.
Please read God Does Not Love Everyone: A Hyper-Calvinist Error for more information.
–TDR
Recent Comments