Calvinism is "ALL" Wrong

Perhaps the greatest theme in all scripture is God's redemption of fallen man.  Scripture prophesies redemption.  It then lays out its actual occurrence through Jesus and then scripture boasts about it.  No one can deny that redemption is a great theme in scripture.

A sub-theme of God's redemption is that God offers his redemption to ALL people.  This sub-theme is backed by dozens of scriptures and is not based on just a single arbitrary scriptural reference. However, Calvinism vehemently opposes the idea that God offers salvation to all men.  In doing so they employ several erroneous exegetical techniques which lead to errors.  Among them are:

• Circular Reasoning                                                                                          
  
• Chosen Ignorance
• Redefinition of words
• Use of philosophy

We will return to these errors in great detail but let's first look at what the scriptures actually say. There are dozens of scriptures that convey the message that God offers salvation to all and the scriptures uses words like "all", "whoever" and "everyone" to convey the message.  Here are but a few:

For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. John 3:16

This famous passage mentions "the world" meaning all people and then uses the word "whoever" to convey the idea that anyone can believe in Christ.

This is good, and pleases God our Savior, who wants all people to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth. For there is one God and one mediator between God and mankind, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all people.  1 Timothy 2:3-4

Could this passage be any clearer?  The terms "all people", "mankind" and "all people" a second time make it clear that our Savior came to die for all.                                                                

And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all people to myself.” John 12:32

"All people" is used again.  He succeeded in drawing all to him when he was lifted up at the cross.

But we do see Jesus, who was made lower than the angels for a little while, now crowned with glory and honor because he suffered death, so that by the grace of God he might taste death for everyone.  Hebrews 2:9

Jesus tasted death for "everyone".  This is not ambiguous in any way.

The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. Instead he is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance. 2 Peter 3:9

Again, it is clear God wants "everyone" to come to repentance.  There are many more but even if there were no more, the perspicacity of the above passages are undeniable.

Calvinism's Problem 

You would think everyone would rejoice with this amazing message of God's love and grace because it is for all and excludes no one.  It makes God loving, merciful, just and no respecter of persons.  The problem however is that Calvinists are not happy about this message.  In fact, they deny the clear message of dozens of scriptures in order to deny the conclusion that Jesus died for all.

Calvinists deny that Christ died for all.  They hold at least two opinions on this.  Some say that whenever you see "all" or "everyone" in scriptures having to do with redemption, these words are simply referencing the "elect" which are God's predetermined few. Other Calvinists say that words referring to words like "all" are referring to all "kinds" and not really all.  Either way, "ALL" and other words like it never really mean "all" like people actually use the word.  Whew!  That is tough to explain.  It is even tougher to explain why they do it.

How do they deny these clear passages?  They do so by the exegetical errors I listed above so now it is time to investigate these errors in greater detail:

• Circular Reasoning                                                                                          
• Chosen Ignorance
• Redefinition of words
• Use of philosophy

Chosen Ignorance is what I call what some in Calvinism do.  They simply choose to ignore the passage if it does not fit their grid.  It is like they use a kind of Bible "white-out" since they act like the passage is not there or that it does not mean exactly what it says.

Most hardcore Calvinists go beyond Chosen Ignorance and use a combination of the other three methods I listed above.  

First and foremost, they use Circular Reasoning.  Circular Reasoning is the erroneous exegetical technique of interpreting something based fully on a preconceived belief. Since "such and such" is true then that means that this other "such and such" must also be true.  This technique is commonly used by evolutionists who use their Circular Reasoning to rely first on their premise that there is no God which leads them to concoct theories based not on facts but on their original premise.    

Calvinists use Circular Reasoning in spades.  They use it to deny the clear meaning of the scriptural passages listed above.  Their original premise is that God elected only a few people to be redeemed and saved therefore the scriptures mentioned above must only refer to the elect.  In doing so they break the cardinal rule of exegesis which is to read the scripture based on what it really says in its context.

The reason Calvinists do this is because if the above scriptures are true then Calvinism is not a valid collection of doctrines.  If God really wants all men to be saved then "unconditional election" is purely fiction.  They don't want to face this so they first choose to ignore what the passage clearly conveys and then they proceed to explain the passage to mean the only thing it can mean given their already arrived on premise.  This is clear cut Circular Reasoning.

Calvinists mix another exegetical erroneous method with Circular Reasoning which helps them to convince themselves what they believe is true.  They use what all the fathers of Calvinism used including Augustine and Calvin.  They use philosophy to support their exegesis.  Philosophy is any argument that is not in scripture.  It often reads into scripture an element that is simply not there and it is simply based on human opinion.  Therefore Calvinists will make statements like the following:

"If God wanted all men to be saved they would be saved since he is sovereign."

"If Jesus died for all and some men are in hell than some of Christ's blood would have been wasted." 

These kinds of statements do not come from scripture.  These statements are strictly philosophical arguments since they have no scriptural basis.  Where in scripture is there the idea that God's sovereignty is diminished by allowing men to choose to believe? There is none.  Where in scripture does it convey the idea that Christ's blood is wasted if man can reject salvation?  Nowhere.  This is philosophy on steroids.

Finally, the above errors allow Calvinists to simply redefine the words used in the "all" scriptures that I mentioned above.  The Calvinist redefinition is that "all" does not mean "all" men; "all" means the "elect" or it means "kinds".  They teach that whenever you see "all" it means the elect.  They carry this over for every other term that conveys the word "all" and that includes the other terms including "whoever" and "everyone".  How they do it with the word "mankind" is beyond ridiculous!

David Hunt, the noted theologian, wrote a great book on the errors of Calvinism called "What Love Is This?".  On page 255, Hunt adroitly exposes the foolishness of Calvinism's "all" redefinition in scripture as it applies to "kinds":

Under what circumstances would anyone understand "all" to mean not all but 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, 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; "If that is what you meant, then that is what you should have said."

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 of military draft," who would imagine that it really means 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 See 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.? 

Hunt makes it clear that Calvinism's premise is simply ridiculous.  Calvinism's desperation is screaming in high decibels here.

However if they choose to insist that "all" always means the elect then I don't know what they do with this passage:

For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive. 1 Corinthians 15:22

In the above scripture, it is clear that in Adam all die.  Calvinists believe this as well as those who oppose Calvinism.  However the second part of the scripture is equally clear in saying that in Christ all were made alive.  This creates a problem for Calvinists because they heartily agree that all died in Adam but they will deny that all in Christ will be made alive.  This passage if interpreted like the other scriptures then would mean that "all" here means the elect.  It would say "For as in Adam the elect die but in Christ the elect will be made alive."  This kind of reasoning then would mean that only the elect died when Adam sinned and fell in the garden.  This would contradict John Calvin's premise that all men died in the garden, both the elect and the non-elect.

In the same way this passage is also a big problem for Calvinists:

Here is a trustworthy saying that deserves full acceptance: Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners...1 Timothy 1:15                                                                 

It is a problem based on Calvinist views because if Christ died to save sinners and yet Christ died for only the elect, does this mean that only the elect are sinners?  Does it mean also that the non-elect are not sinners?

This Calvinism view causes as many problems for Calvinism as it helps them.  They cannot have it both ways and these are the kind of conundrums that Calvinists have when they use faulty, even foolish exegesis to support erroneous doctrines. Calvinism has many problems and this reckless exegesis is just one of them but it is a big one since it is clear beyond any challenge that Jesus died for everyone and the gospel message is to be preached to all.  All means all and that is all!  

Darrell Brantingham

(Check out my pithy tweets on Twitter @confrontcalvin)