Calvinism Makes God Disingenuous and This Proves It To Be False

What bothers me most about Calvinism is its proclivity to throw God under the bus in order to establish and defend its doctrines.  Ironically it does not make sense because Calvinism claims that they want God to get all the credit for salvation.  But in order for God to get all the credit for providing salvation they seriously malign and misrepresent God's character by making him insincere and downright disingenuous. This is not some vague inference found in Calvinist doctrine. This is full on doctrinal violence against God's character. Unfortunately, this assault on God's character resonates in every Calvinist doctrine and attributes to God many things that are simply not true.

I don't think that it is the Calvinist's intention to assault God's character. Calvinism does not misrepresent God to make him look bad. I think their troubling misrepresentation of God is not their goal but in order to protect their doctrines they are forced to presume things about God that are simply false and not backed by scripture. Sadly, the fact remains that Calvinism/Reformed doctrine assaults God's character even if this is not their objective.

This article focuses on how Calvinism makes God disingenuous at best and a liar at worst. We know that God cannot lie so the problem is not God's but lies with the doctrines of Calvinism. Scripture tells us that God is not a man that he should lie (Numbers 23:19). God is not duplicitous and he does not dabble in deception or falsehood. God is above reproach and his word is always good. What we have in the Bible is God's holy word and therefore it is a witness of his goodness. It is a witness that he does not lie. Scripture is clear that every offer that God makes to man is sincere and not deceptive.

Calvinism's doctrine of "Unconditional Election" states that God predetermined each man's fate before each man ever lived.  It goes on to say that God chooses the elect and everyone else is allowed a one-way ticket to hell.  They redefine words and cherry-pick scriptures here and there to try to support this doctrine.  However, their greatest mistake is ignoring passages that don't agree at all with this notion. This article addresses the many passages of scripture that stand as an immovable witness against doctrines that imply that God is disingenuous and insincere by making statements that he does not really mean.  

For instance, the idea that God predetermines that most people go to hell without those people having any responsibility in the matter and yet states in scripture that salvation is offered to all men implies that God is insincere and dishonest. The good news is that scripture reveals that there are hundreds of statements made by God that are clear and demonstrate that man has the ability to respond to God. 

The Gospel

The gospel in the Greek means "good news" or "good message" and scripture says it should be preached to all:

And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. Mark 16:15 (KJV)

The scripture above is commonly called "The Great Commission" and it was commanded by Jesus to his disciples to preach the good news to all people. If God already chose most people to be punished in hell, why would he also command that the gospel be preached to every creature?  Was He just rubbing it in? Was God laughing in heaven knowing some could never respond? Certainly not. This would make God disingenuous in his offering.

An example of such foolishness is if I were to invite someone to my house for dinner but don't have any intention of letting them come in to my home to eat dinner, I would be in fact disingenuous in my offer of dinner.

Is the Great Commission a perdifuous command by God or has Calvinism misrepresented God and his character by insisting that God have his people preach to the lost knowing they can't respond?

The Love of God

Jesus told his disciples to love their enemies and to pray for them too.  If God predetermines most people to be lost (some Calvinists say God makes them reprobate), then why would he purposefully damn those he made and yet tell us to love those who are our enemies.  Does God hold man to a higher standard than He practices? It is incoherent to say God randomly chooses some to suffer eternal punishment without having any say in the matter and yet demand that his people love their enemies. This would make God a hypocrite if he requires man to do one thing and then He does even a worse thing. God's love which is clearly described in the Bible has been twisted by Calvinism in to something that does not resemble what it is described as in the Bible.

There are many ways that God invites and beckons men to himself. Here are just a few:

Seek the Lord

The Bible has dozens of statements where God instructs man to seek him.  Here are just three of them:

Seek the Lord while he may be found; call on him while he is near. Let the wicked forsake their ways and the unrighteous their thoughts. Let them turn to the Lord, and he will have mercy on them, and to our God, for he will freely pardon.  Isaiah 55:6-7

The Lord is with you, while ye be with him; and if ye seek him, he will be found of you; but if ye forsake him, he will forsake you. 2 Chronicles 15:2 

And without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is and that He is a rewarder of those who seek Him.  Hebrews 11:6 

Why would God tell man in such thunderous volume to seek him if he will not be found by some of them by his own predetermination?  Why would God say that he can be sought if in fact man cannot seek God? How disingenuous this would be if true!

Come to Me

God often refers to the idea that men can come to Him even before they are His. Scripture indicates that some men refuse to come to God of their own volition. Check these out:

And ye will not come to me, that ye might have life. John 5:40                  

And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst. John 6:35  

And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. 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 22:17 

Why would God give personal invitations throughout scripture if man could not come to him?

Turn To The Lord

Draw near to God and He will draw near to you Cleanse your hands, you sinners; and purify your hearts, you double-minded. James 4:8

Take with you words, and turn to the Lord: say unto him, Take away all iniquity, and receive us graciously: so will we render the calves of our lips.  

Hosea 14:1-2

And rend your heart, and not your garments, and turn unto the Lord your God: for he is gracious and merciful, slow to anger, and of great kindness, and repenteth him of the evil. Joel 2:13  

God has given men the ability to turn to Him. If God does all the turning then why does God require that men turn? Surely man can turn to the Lord if the Lord instructs him to do so.

Return To The Lord

For if ye turn again unto the Lord, your brethren and your children shall find compassion before them that lead them captive, so that they shall come again into this land: 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

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

Return, ye backsliding children, and I will heal your backslidings. Behold, we come unto thee; for thou art the Lord our God. Jeremiah 3:22

Men can clearly choose to sin and even turn away from the Lord. It makes sense then that God allows men to return to Him by choosing to do so. Returning to God is something men can do or God would never have mentioned that he could.

 Repent

Therefore say unto the house of Israel, Thus saith the Lord God; Repent, and turn yourselves from your idols; and turn away your faces from all your abominations. Ezekiel 14:6

Therefore I will judge you, O house of Israel, every one according to his ways, saith the Lord God. Repent, and turn yourselves from all your

transgressions; so iniquity shall not be your ruin. Ezekiel 18:30

From that time Jesus began to preach, and to say, Repent: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand. Matthew 4:17 

Repentance is an action of man. In the Old Testament the Hebrew word "repent" means to turn around and go in the other direction. In the New Testament "repent" in the Greek means "to think new". Either way, God requires that men repent and man clearly has the ability to do so. If man has no ability to repent, then why would God insincerely command him to repent?

Whosoever

The Bible uses the word "whosoever" often in scripture and it is often used in terms of the "whosoever" responding in action to something that God presents to him. Here are just a few examples in scripture:

Then whosoever heareth the sound of the trumpet, and taketh not warning; if the sword come, and take him away, his blood shall be upon his own head. Ezekiel 33:4

Whosoever therefore shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is in heaven. Matthew 10:32   

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, but have everlasting life. For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. John 3:15-17 

The use of the word "whosoever" shows that men are accountable to God's offerings. The word "Whosoever" appears in the KJV 182 times so it is not a rare occurrence.

 Men Told To Choose

Calvinism often refers to God's "election" of people for salvation while holding that God only chooses a few. This is simply not Biblical. The fact is God actually chose to have men choose how they will respond to him. Here are a couple of examples:

And if it seem evil unto you to serve the Lord, choose you this day whom ye will serve; whether the gods which your fathers served that were on the other side of the flood, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land ye dwell: but as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord.  Joshua 24:15

And if it seem evil unto you to serve the Lord, choose you this day whom ye will serve; whether the gods which your fathers served that were on the other side of the flood, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land ye dwell: but as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord. Deut. 30:9 

Conditional Statements

There are 1595 "ifs" in scripture.  Many of these "ifs" are God making a conditional statement to men or nations with the idea that they respond one way or the other. God clearly sets forth conditions for man to respond.  We are told by Calvinists that man has no ability to respond on his own. Why then would God give a conditional statement to someone who has no ability to respond? Would this not make Him disingenuous?

"If" you make the Most High your dwelling – even the LORD, who is my refuge – then no harm will befall you, no disaster will come near your tent."  Psalm 91:9-10

"If only you had paid attention to my commands, your peace would have been like a river, your righteousness like the waves of the sea." Isaiah 48:18

And the Lord said, If I find in Sodom fifty righteous within the city, then I will spare all the place for their sakes. Genesis 18:26 

"...if you confess with your mouth, 'Jesus is Lord', and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved."  Romans 10:9

Why would God issue the above conditional statement and hundreds of other "if" statements if he had already predetermined all things including who would be saved?  Is God being insincere? Never!

The good news is that God is not the caricature that Calvinism has created.  God is not mendacious or insincere. God is not insincere. God is not a liar!  Calvinism's doctrines directly counter the many scriptures I posted above and therefore must be rejected. These passages crush Calvinism's TULIP.! God cannot have predestined certain men for hell before he was born and then still make man responsible for responding to his many invitations to seek him, come to him and turn to him. God cannot reach out to man if man was totally unable to respond to Him. God cannot make grace irresistible to some if he offers grace and salvation to all. God cannot limit atonement to just some if he offers the sacrifice of his son to all.

The God who tells us in James 5:12 to "let our yes be yes and our no be no" does not do double-speak and yet Calvinism itself is rampant with double-speak. If God tells mankind to seek him than he can be sought. If God tells man to turn to him then men can turn to him. If God tells man to return to him then he will receive men when they return. If God states in his word that God loved the world, then God did indeed love the world.

Why does Calvinism insinuate that God is insincere in his commands and offerings? Is it their intention to harm God?  No. Unfortunately, Calvinists make these insinuations in order to justify their doctrines because if man has ability to respond to God then Calvinism's pet doctrines like Unconditional Election are proven to be false. Calvinists would in fact deny that they are insinuating that God is disingenuous but if it is true then they are the ones who are disingenuous for claiming that God says things he does not mean. Calvinistic double-speak is madness!

In this article I have proven three very significant things. First, I prove that God is not disingenuous, insincere or false and that it is actually Calvinism that is often disingenuous and perfiduous. If God has initiated hundreds of invitations, commands and offerings to men but they could not respond, he would in fact be insincere and dishonest.

Secondly, I have proven that man can respond to God or else all God's wooing's, invitations, commands and conditional statements are bogus and dishonest. God has given man the ability and these hundreds of scriptures prove that God communicates his love and mercy to man.

Thirdly, this article emphatically crushes Calvinism and its doctrines. I recommend to my readers that they direct those who are seeking the truth about Calvinism to read the content presented here. I can't imagine any objective believer who values the word of God not seeing the truth that is here regarding the false doctrines of Calvinism. Since Calvinism's doctrines imply that God is insincere then Calvinism has only proved that it is completely false since God does not mislead man in scripture.

Friends, despite Calvinism's false presumptions, there is good news and the good news is that God cannot be indicted as being insincere or disingenuous in any way, shape or form. God is good and his offering to man is good. God in his infinite wisdom and sovereignty gave man the ability to respond to him. How wonderful this message is to us and to all men---it is surely good news!

Darrell Brantingham

(Check out my pithy tweets on Twitter @confrontcalvin)

Reformed Faith Is Not Biblical Faith!

Faith has always been a pillar in the truths of scripture but in the Middle Ages the Roman Catholic Church began to move away from Biblical faith and began to lean on works as the way to ensure that people were saved. To his credit Martin Luther was bold enough to confront these works practices. When Martin Luther nailed the 95 theses on the door of the Roman Catholic Church he confronted a Church that had pulverized the entire idea of faith. Luther made faith a big part of his theology but Luther's faith was not the faith that is clearly described in scripture.                                

Many people are confused about Martin Luther and his declarations about faith. That was true for me until I actually studied the man's history and his theology. People often proclaim that Luther had recovered faith during the Reformation. He is attributed with developing "Sola Fide" which means "Faith Only" in English but Luther had a strange new twist on faith which is clearly not seen in scripture. Luther believed faith was given only to some men. He held vigorously that men have no free will and therefore could not exercise faith but this is not at all what scripture conveys faith to be.

Luther's problem is his conception of what he thinks faith is. Luther believed that faith is simply given to man by God at the time of salvation. He had a fundamental misunderstanding of what the word faith even means. Luther twisted the word "faith" to mean understanding. If one understands something they know it to be true but this is not the Bible's clear definition:                    

Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. Hebrews 11:1

Faith does not mean understanding. The word faith is "pistis" in the Greek and it means "to be persuaded". Here is Vine's Expository Dictionary description for the word "pistis":

primarily, firm persuasion," a conviction based upon hearing (akin to peitho, "to persuade"), is used in the NT always of "faith in God or Christ, or things spiritual."

God has given man something to be persuaded by: the gospel. God also sent the Holy Spirit in to the world to convict men's hearts of their sin and to convince men to receive salvation which is the free gift of God. Through the gospel therefore God offers man the free gift of salvation by the message of the gospel and the work of the Holy Spirit. God gave man free will and man has the opportunity to receive or reject God's gift. Real faith in the Biblical sense is man exercising his free will to receive God's gifts. God initiates his offerings including the gift of salvation and man must respond by faith. In terms of sotierology God persuades man through the presentation of the gospel and man is able to respond to God by faith.                                                                                                            

Thus Ephesians 2:8 confirms this:

For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:

The gift of God in this verse refers to the matter of being saved and it occurs by God's grace since God sent Jesus. Grace is the conduit by which we receive God's gifts and provisions. It is through faith that we are saved since God has given to all men as a response mechanism to receive or reject God's wonderful gifts that flow to us by God's grace.

But Luther's "faith" as he construes it implies that God gives man the understanding to be saved and this he concludes is because man has no free will. Sadly, Luther's erroneous understanding of man's free will is apparently what provoked him to believe that man had lost his free will.

Another well-known Reformed theologian, John Calvin also shaped Reformed Theology but he parted ways with Luther on some things theologically and one of his disagreements with Luther was his conclusion regarding faith. Calvin and the Calvinism that burgeoned out of his teachings declare that man died in the garden after the fall and therefore cannot have faith since he died spiritually and lost any ability to have faith due to the fall. The Bible never records this conclusion but Calvin developed this understanding out of his own philosophy and then pulled scripture out of context to support his thesis.

Calvin believed that man can only have faith after regeneration. Therefore in my opinion, Calvin's faith is not really true faith because his conception can really only be understood as an automated response of one already regenerated. Like Luther, Calvin's understanding of faith is not found in scripture. Calvin misses by a wide margin what faith is actually defined as in scripture: "Faith is the substance of things hoped for and the substance of things not seen." Hebrews 11:1

The "faith" defined here is about believing something before he sees it. Faith is not the fruit of being saved but is in fact a connecting point with God that must happen for men to be saved.

Therefore what Calvin has done here is minimize faith so that it is pretty much rendered irrelevant. When Calvinists quote "saved by grace through faith" I get the idea that there really is no difference between their understanding of grace and faith. If God gave men both grace and faith then what value does each bring? Where is the difference between the two? There is no need for faith for salvation if it occurs after one is saved.

But if one has a right understanding of grace and faith it becomes clear quite quickly that the two are actually quite different as they work hand-in-hand. Grace is simply God's good, unmerited favor given to all men through Christ alone. Faith is simply man's response to that grace given by God in Jesus Christ. Therefore the combination of "saved by grace through faith" is actually quite significant.  Without the "by grace" the "through faith" is irrelevant. Visa-versa is true too. The "by grace" without any "through faith" means that nothing happens unless grace comes and is received in faith. Grace is God's advance towards man and man's response is by faith. Grace and faith therefore are uniquely different but synergistically function together as it applies to men's salvation.

Scripture never supports either Luther's or Calvin's ideas on faith. Scripture makes it very clear that faith is a response of one who hears the word of God. That one who hears can reject or accept and the response to receive is faith and rejection is lack of faith. Faith is man's response to God's grace and is always exercised as a means of responding to God's initiations and invitations. God gave man the ability to have faith (believe) as a response to hearing the word of God and when man responds to God in faith, God is very pleased.

Faith is Big in Scripture

Throughout scripture faith is seen and approved of by God. The Bible clearly records that Jesus commended faith when He saw it. When the centurion responded in faith, Jesus gave credit to him for his faith:

When Jesus heard it, he marvelled, and said to them that followed, Verily I say unto you, I have not found so great faith, no, not in Israel. Matthew 8:10

The most convincing passage of the many scriptures that note our Lord's response to faith is the story of the woman with the issue of blood:

And a woman having an issue of blood twelve years, which had spent all her living upon physicians, neither could be healed of any, came behind him, and touched the border of his garment: and immediately her issue of blood stanched.                                                                                                             

And Jesus said, Who touched me? When all denied, Peter and they that were with him said, Master, the multitude throng thee and press thee, and sayest thou, Who touched me? And Jesus said, Somebody hath touched me: for I perceive that virtue is gone out of me. 

And when the woman saw that she was not hid, she came trembling, and falling down before him, she declared unto him before all the people for what cause she had touched him, and how she was healed immediately. And he said unto her, Daughter, be of good comfort: thy faith hath made thee whole; go in peace. Luke 8:43-48

The above story is truly amazing because Jesus did not know that the woman was healed until after the woman touched him. This passage crushes both Luther's and Calvin's understanding of faith because it clearly shows faith came from the woman. She neither received her faith from God nor was she already saved.

Jesus was also quick to condemn the lack of faith when He saw it. Jesus rarely criticized His disciples and when he did, it always was about faith. When Peter was walking on the water with Jesus he began to doubt and Jesus rebuked him saying "O thou of little faith." (Matthew 14:31)      

Another time, Jesus confronted his disciples when they reasoned among themselves about not bringing bread:

Which when Jesus perceived, he said unto them, O ye of little faith, why reason ye among yourselves, because ye have brought no bread? Matthew 16:8

Another time a man brought His son to Christ's disciples because His son was demonized but the disciples were unable to help so the man went to Jesus and he responded:

Then Jesus answered and said, "O faithless and perverse generation, how long shall I be with you? how long shall I suffer you? Bring him hither to me." Matthew 17:17

Jesus lumped being faithless and perversity in the same sentence as he rebuked his disciples for not having the faith to help the man's son. There are many other passages in scripture where Jesus honored people's faith or rebuked them for lack of faith. In every occurrence, faith is described as a response to God.

Therefore we can only conclude from scripture that having faith is something man can do to respond to God. God does not give the faith but instead gives the innate ability to respond in faith. Luther's doctrine that God gives man faith blindly to man proves to be false. Calvin's doctrine that man cannot have faith until after God regenerates him is also proven false. Otherwise why would Jesus give credit to people when they had faith if it was really His faith? Why would he rebuke people for having little or no faith if He was the one who gives faith? If only Jesus provided faith to man He would have to rebuke himself for having little or no faith when man does not display faith.

Scripture Crushes Both Luther and Calvin's Understanding of Faith

Regarding Luther, scripture is clear that man does have free will and does have the ability to respond in faith. Regarding Calvin, scripture is clear that having faith by responding to God is what happens before man is regenerated. This is found in many scriptures. Consider these scriptures and follow the order what comes first in each passage:

He then brought them out and asked, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?” They replied, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved—you and your household.” Acts 16:31

and                                                                                                                                  

But what does it say? “The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart” (that is, the word of faith that we proclaim); because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved. Romans 10:8-10

and

Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned. Mark 6:16

The emphasis above for anyone who knows the English language is clear. It is "whoever" that believes that is saved. Believing occurs before salvation.

and

The ones along the path are those who have heard; then the devil comes and takes away the word from their hearts, so that they may not believe and be saved. Luke 8:12

The scriptures above are abundantly clear that the word through God's initiation comes into the heart and one must believe to be saved.

Hebrews 11 is the faith chapter and in this chapter God honors all those that responded in faith to God. Why would God honor those who move in faith if faith was given to man and not a response as Luther believed. Why would God honor those who exercised faith if they only received faith after being saved like Calvin believed? The fact is that those mentioned in Hebrews 11 were not saved when they moved in faith.

The scriptural passages above make it abundantly clear that one must believe and have faith in order to be saved. The false faith doctrines that most in the Reformed movement believe must be rejected because they are foreign to scripture. Instead, as believers we should resolve to share the good news about the faith mechanism God has given to us and to exercise that faith as often as we can.    

But without faith it is impossible to please him: for 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

Darrell Brantingham

(Check out my pithy tweets on Twitter @confrontcalvin)

Dueling TULIPs? Calvinism's Confusion Is Showing!

If Calvinism is anything it's confusing. Calvinism suffers much confusion these days. Given the evidence, it is no wonder. There are 1 point Calvinists, 2 point Calvinists, 3 point Calvinists, 4 point Calvinists and 5 point Calvinists. If one does the math, this translates to 120 possible unique Calvinist positions based on the TULIP alone. But that does not even scratch the surface of the variety of Calvinism flavors that are possible. Baskin-Robbins on steroids?                                                  

Some Calvinists claim there are different levels of Calvinists inlcluding one Calvinist who insists there are nine levels. See this link: https://reformedforhisglory.wordpress.com/2013/08/09/types-of-calvinism-a-comprehensive-list/

The Calvinist's article list includes the following flavors of Calvinism:                      

1. Total hyper-Calvinism                                                                
2. Partial hyper-Calvinism
3. Ultra-High Calvinism                                                                    

4. Regular High Calvinism

5. Moderate Calvinism                                                                  

6. Lower Moderate Calvinism
7. Lower Calvinism
8. Lowest Calvinism
9. Amyraldism (4 point Calvinism)

Indeed! Yes, there are Calvinists and Hyper-Calvinists. There are New Calvinists and Old Calvinists. There are light Calvinists, Calvinist leaners and neo-Calvinists. Some Calvinists don't want to be called a Calvinist but choose only to be called "Reformed" although they hold to Calvinist doctrines. Calvinism is confusion run amok!

With these kinds of designations and distinctions it is no wonder then that there is so much confusion within Calvinism! No wonder some Calvinists get upset when challenged by non-Calvinists like me. Like many opponents of Calvinism I am often accused of misrepresenting Calvinism by making a statement in a tweet or in a blog article that they don't like.  The fact is that all my tweets or statements on my blog are actually direct responses to what a Calvinist somewhere has written or stated and is usually from a well-known Calvinist. Despite the fact that what I write is always in direct response to what a Calvinist has stated, I still get accused of misrepresenting Calvinism. I may misrepresent someone's Calvinism but I am simply challenging the Calvinism brandied about by a Calvinist of a different variety.
                                                                                           

Of course sometimes this charge of misreprestantion is just something Calvinists say because they don't like the way I expose their doctrines for having criticaly errors. What I write as a statement of response to Calvimism is not going to represent every Calvinist perspective. How could it? The fact is that there are many views within Calvinism even about some of their most popular doctrines.

Take for instance infralapsarianism, sublapsarianism, and supralapsarianism which are three views that Calvinism has about their pet doctrine: predestination. The three different views have to do with the order of events as it applies to predestination. I am not going to define them here but I want to point out that there are three very different positions on this doctrine alone.

The five points of Calvinism are the five points that are represented by the TULIP acronym which most Calvinists hold to as the base for their doctrines.  There are many differing beliefs on the five points and many Calvinists don't believe in all of the five points. That is why so many confess to be less than a 5 point Calvinist.  One Calvinist told me that he was a 1 and a half point Calvinist. This kind of statement illustrates my conclusion which is that there are many doctrinal views and perspectives within Calvinism.

Dueling TULIPS                                                                                             

There are also disagreements with points that are not specific to the TULIP. For instance, there is the issue of whether God loves those he did not choose to be saved.  Some say "yes" and some say "no". Calvinist John MacArthur says God loves all men as did John Calvin but esteemed Calvinist author A.W. Pink states that God does not love all men but loves only the elect. Calvinists are definitely split on this subject.

Calvinists can't even agree on something as basic as John 3:16.  Some dispute that God loves all people or just the elect while others state that God loves all men but just saves some.  Some say that Jesus died for all and others say Jesus died only for the elect. Some Calvinists hold to Limited Atonement and believe that Jesus died for only the sins of the elect while others say Jesus died for everyone's sins.                                                                                      

Some Calvinists say that God offered salvation to all men while others do not.  The ones that say that God offers salvation to everyone but conclude that in the end they can't be saved are just displaying obvious double-speak. Calvinism is full of double-speak which only adds to the confusion. All this incertitude illustrates the confusion within Calvinist ranks.

Some Calvinists say that God reprobated the men he did not choose for salvation which really means that God chose some for salvation and some to be damned. Still others teach that God simply passed over some while choosing some for salvation.

While Calvinists disagree on many issues, some related to the TULIP and others outside TULIP; most seem to agree on some pretty commonly held beliefs.  This includes the belief that man cannot be saved unless God chose them to be saved.  Of course some believe in double-predestination and some in single predestination.

Though Calvinists disagree on plenty, they usually agree on Total Depravity as they conclude that man has no ability to respond to God. There are other beliefs where there seems to be some agreement too. These few foundational agreements seem to be enough to keep most Calvinists on common ground.

The truth is that I could go on for a long time with this discussion about how Calvinists differ in belief and opinion from one another but I think I have made my point regarding the diversities of Calvinist doctrine and the subsequent confusion that comes from this. I find a lot of websites where Calvinists are criticising other Calvinists.

Why is there so much confusion with Calvinism?  My opinion is that Calvinism has so much diversity of opinion and befuddlement because so much of what it conveys is based on philosophy and not on scripture. The root of the problem is that Calvinism simply is not built on clear scripture which open the door to all kinds of theological conjecture..                                                                                                          

No one including me should be accused by Calvinists of misrepresentation when Calvinists themselves disagree on many of the issues that are being challenged. Still I know that those of us that oppose Calvinism are going to keep hearing the allegation of misrepresentation. But really, how can they expect anything elese?

Darrell Brantingham


(Check out my pithy tweets on Twiter @confrontcalvin)

Confronting Calvinism's Acts 13:48

Acts 13:48 at first glance seems to be Calvinism's best passage as it pertains to proving their position. Romans 9 is not a good argument given the true context of the chapter is about Israel. John 17 is clearly about Jesus and his preparation of those who would carry the gospel to the nations. Verses in John 6 are refuted by the context that surrounds them. Then we have Acts 13:48 and one's first impressions is that this one verse seems to state that some people were saved because they had been appointed to life which for Calvinists would be a proof of unconditional election.

However Acts 13:48 deserves a much deeper analysis since it is just one verse and it appears to be the only passage in all of scripture that proves Calvinism.  As with all honest exegesis, context is the key to understanding what this verse really says. By itself Acts 13:48 seems to convey something here but what about when it is read in full context.                                                                    

Real estate is said to be "location, location, location" and good exegesis of any scripture starts with "context, context, context". Unfortunately context is not valued by most Calvinists. Context is often ignored by Calvinists who seem to be very good at simply lifting a verse here and a verse there n hope that these verses pulled willy-nilly out of the Bible are knit together for some doctrinal proof that is simply not there when read in context.

Please open your Bible and read Acts 13 in its entirety.  Then let the deeper analysis begin...

Context
Acts 13 is a chapter that in context is about the preaching of the word of God by Paul and Barnabas. Acts 13:48 falls into that context and is quite specific about the preaching of the gospel that is rejected by the Jews but received by the Gentiles.  Therefore the context of Acts 13:48 is precisely about this matter.  The whole of Acts 13 is about Paul and Barnabas preaching the gospel.  There is not one verse in Acts 13 outside of verse 48 which even hints at the Calvinist doctrine of unconditional election. This is point one that we learn from our contextual review.

In Acts 13:13 Paul and Barnabas arrive at the synagogue on the Sabbath in the city of Antioch. Paul preaches a wonderful sermon that is directed at the Jews and it stirs up both interest and controversy. The key to the sermon is a verse that actually confronts unconditional election at its core:

38 Be it known unto you therefore, men and brethren, that through this man is preached unto you the forgiveness of sins:

39 And by him all that believe are justified from all things, from which ye could not be justified by the law of Moses.

40 Beware therefore, lest that come upon you, which is spoken of in the prophets;

41 Behold, ye despisers, and wonder, and perish: for I work a work in your days, a work which ye shall in no wise believe, though a man declare it unto you.

What we see here is Paul clearly crushing Calvinism before Acts 13:48. Paul preaches a gospel "of everyone who believes" which proves that believing is the key to salvation. Further Paul warns his hearers that because of their "scoffing" they will perish since they do not believe. If unconditional election is the point of this passage Paul would have stated that point directly. Instead we see that Paul finishes his sermon by confronting those who will not believe.  It is the scoffers who don't believe and who perish. Where does Paul espouse unconditional election here?

The next verses record that Paul and Barnabas are asked by many to attend the synagogue on the next Sabbath and that is exactly what they do. What is remarkable is that almost the whole city of Antioch shows up to hear Paul and Barnabas and the Jews became very jealous:

44 And the next sabbath day came almost the whole city together to hear the word of God. 

45 But when the Jews saw the multitudes, they were filled with envy, and spake against those things which were spoken by Paul, contradicting and blaspheming.          

46 Then Paul and Barnabas waxed bold, and said, It was necessary that the word of God should first have been spoken to you: but seeing ye put it from you, and judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life, lo, we turn to the Gentiles.

The above passage IS the key context that Acts 13:48 is found in. Acts 13:48 must not be shared outside of this context. To do so is to show appalling disregard to the text. Unfortunately, this is exactly what Calvinism does. Because they do not honor the context they interpret Acts 13:48 as a stand-alone verse because it only works when standing alone.

Acts 13:48 must be shared in context so I present it as such starting with verse 46:

46 Then Paul and Barnabas waxed bold, and said, It was necessary that the word of God should first have been spoken to you: but seeing ye put it from you, and judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life, lo, we turn to the Gentiles.

47 For so hath the Lord commanded us, saying, I have set thee to be a light of the Gentiles, that thou shouldest be for salvation unto the ends of the earth.

48 And when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad, and glorified the word of the Lord: and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed.

Verse 46 is the key verse for understanding Acts 13:48 because it is direct context.  Paul and Barnabas announce to the Jews who are rejecting the gospel that they will now preach that gospel to the Gentiles.

Therefore it is very clear that God has chosen to now offer salvation to the Gentiles so that they might believe and that is what Acts 13:48 is really about. It is the statement in verse 46 that provoked the Gentiles to get excited which resulted in being glad and glorifying the Lord. The context here is ALL about the GENTILES believing after the Jews rejected the gospel. The word that Calvinists seize for this verse is the word "ordained" which some versions translate as "appointed.  If you remove this word, the Calvinist notion that God has predestined these people in verse 48 goes away completely making it worthless to Calvinism. But since the word does occur Calvinism attempts to make the verse work to support the doctrine of unconditional election.

The problem for Calvinism is that the word "ordained" is specifically pointing back to verses 46 and 47 and is referring to the Gentiles. "Ordained" then makes the associative point that God has now ordained the Gentiles to receive salvation and eternal life.  The word "ordained" therefore is speaking not of predetermination that some specific Gentiles were being saved but that the Gentiles were now ordained or approved or set in place to receive salvation through Jesus. Therefore the "ordained" is not a reference to these specific individuals but is referring to Gentiles in the greater sense.

The Greek word for "ordained" means to be "set in place". That is the way this Greek word is always used in scripture. It is never used to mean "chosen" but simply means to "set in place", It is a word commonly used in a military sense.  Therefore Acts 13:48 is only saying that Gentiles were now ordained or set in place to receive salvation. For thousands of years the Gentiles had not been allowed to participate in the salvation that had been offered only to the Jews and now there time has come.

Acts 13:48 therefore is no proof at all for Calvinism or unconditional election. The verse is taken out of context and the whole concept of just "these" Gentiles being placed to receive the gospel is not a rational understanding. But Calvinists twist this passage and try to make the case that this verse is about specific hearers being preselected for salvation. It is simply not the case.

Interestingly this interpretation doesn't even meet the true Calvinist standard for unconditional election because if God chose just Gentiles to be saved here he is actually using conditional election with the condition being that these men were Gentiles. Acts 13:48 therefore is a violation of their own doctrine if understood the way Calvinists want it to be.

The verse then in paraphrased language could be stated:

And when the Gentiles (not previously positioned) heard this, they were glad and glorified the word of the Lord (believing God's word) and as many as were ordained (the Gentiles) to eternal life believed because now the gospel had been given to the Gentiles.

Much like Romans 9 is really about God rejecting Israel who rebelled against him and offering salvation to the Gentiles so Acts 13 is about God using Paul and Barnabas to announce that God was now offering salvation to the Gentiles since his offering of salvation was being rejected by the Jews.

But what IF...

What if Acts 13:48 was really all about what Calvinists say it is about?  The best it could do is prove that God chose some Gentiles on this one day to be saved but what would it prove beyond that? Does it prove that all people are saved because they were preordained?  No, because it is only speaking of this one place in time and applying it to everyone that will ever get saved is desperate if anything.

I agree with my earlier conclusion that Acts 13:48 is really about the Gentiles given their place to be saved as God ordained for that moment in time and is not about God's predestination of some to be saved BUT even if I agreed with Calvinism's conclusion it would only prove that a few people at this one location were chosen to be saved by God's purpose and proves nothing about unconditional election for all who eventually get saved..

Therefore the Calvinist's misguided assertion that Acts 13:48 proves unconditional election is pathetic. What about all the other passages in scripture where this word "ordained" is not used? So even if you give Calvinism its way on this verse which I don't; you still do not get any proof that the doctrine of unconditional election is valid.

Scripture, good exegesis and context all condemn Acts 13:48 which is cooked up by Calvinist methodology.

Another one bites the dust...

Darrell Brantingham

(Check out my pithy tweets on Twitter @confrontcalvin)

There Are NO Clear Scriptures Supporting Calvinism

Where are they? Where are all the Biblical passages that clearly support Calvinism? The truth is that there are none. Calvinism is unfortunately built on inferences and "hope so's" and not on Holy Scripture. There are no passages in the Bible that clearly state that the doctrines of Calvinism and their TULIP are genuine doctrines.

Even A.W. Pink, the revered and noted Calvinist confirms my conclusion when discussing unconditional election in his book called "Election":                                                                            

“It is a difficult doctrine, and this in three respects.  First, in the understanding of it.  Unless we are privileged to sit under the ministry of some Spirit-taught servant of God, who presents the truth to us systematically, great pains and diligence are called for in the searching of the Scriptures, so that we may collect and tabulate their scattered statements on this subject. It has not pleased the Holy Spirit to give us one complete and orderly setting forth of the doctrine of election, but instead "here a little, there a little"—in typical history, in psalm and prophecy, in the great prayer of Christ (John 17), in the epistles of the apostles. Second, in the acceptation of it.”

I don't agree with Pink on much but his take here on unconditional election is accurate. He notes that scriptures of supposed support for Calvinism are "collected" and "tabulated' from "scattered statements" and grasped by an approach that is "here a little, there a little" approach. In other words Pink confesses a theology that is established by the connect-the-dots methodology and this kind of exegesis always leads to error. This is the same way that cults create their doctrines. It is the way that the Mormons and Jehovah Witnesses support their theology. These groups have their scriptures of support but these support passages are not clear, are out of context and full of inferences.

Let's consider six of Calvinism's major doctrines that support TULIP and Calvinism:        

#1 - The Sovereignty of God
Calvinists teach that the Sovereignty of God means that God must predetermine all things because if he did not, he would not be sovereign. There are two problems with this. First "sovereignty" as defined by the dictionary does not mean that one is fully controlling every aspect.  The word actually means that the one who is sovereign is over all things.  Secondly, there is not a scripture to be found that clearly states that God predetermines all things including man's sin, rebellion and ability to be saved.  Yet Calvinists grasp at proof scriptures that do not clearly state what Calvinists believe. A clear scripture would look something like this:                                                                                      

God is sovereign over all matters concerning mankind. He decides all things about every man's life. Man has no choices because God initiates every thing that a man does. God alone predetermines all things. 1 Calvin 1:16

The problem is that this scripture does not exist nor anything even close to it.

#2 - Unconditional Election
Calvinists teach that God chose some to be saved. Some teach that God simply passed over those whom he did not choose to save while other Calvinists teach that God reprobated those he did not save, damning them to hell by his own purpose. The problem is that there is not one clear "proof" passage that states either is true. Romans 9 is certainly not a clear passage since the part Calvinists use is taken out of context and the whole inference is simply not clear in the passage. Ephesians 1 does not clearly state that God predetermined who will and will not be saved but instead states what God has in mind for those who have come to faith in Christ.. John 17 is very weak too as it simply records how God selected certain men to be his apostles to share the good news. None of these passages cited by Reformed folks clearly state something like the following:

 God chose some men for salvation while passing over others. Therefore man has no say in the matter of his coming to God and receiving salvation. God has predetermined salvation for all man, some for salvation and some for damnation and eternal punishment. 1 Calvin 2:16

Is there any scripture in the Bible that comes even close to the above? Certainly not!              

#3 - Total Depravity                                                                                                              

Calvinists teach that man's fall in the garden by eating of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil made man totally depraved.  They state that this total depravity has corrupted man's ability to reason in the spiritual realm. Reformed folks also state that because man died at the fall he has no ability to respond unless God regenerates him first.  Most theologians on both sides of this doctrine agree that Calvinism's view is really one of man's total inability.

Total Depravity is one of Calvinism's weakest doctrines and is foundational to the Calvinist TULIP and it simply does not have any kind of scriptural support. The words "total depravity" or any statement like it is not found in a single phrase of scripture. The verses used to prove Total Depravity are pulled willy-nilly out of context and don't come close to proving this doctrine. To believe in Total Depravity, there would need to be at least one passage stating what Calvinists teach.  There would need to be a passage that says something like this:

When man sinned and fell in the garden he became completely evil and lost all ability to ever seek God or choose God.  Therefore man is so morally corrupt by the fall and so spiritually dead that he has no free will. 1 Calvin 3:16

Is there a statement in scripture like the above? Absolutely not!

#4 - Limited Atonement
Calvinists teach that Christ's atonement was only for the elect and not for all men despite many passages that state that he actually did atone for all men. Once again there is not one clear portion of scripture that even comes close to supporting such a doctrine which is why even many Calvinists reject this doctrine.

There is not one passage that clearly states that Christ's atonement was not for all like the following states for instance:                                                                                                              

Jesus did not atone for all men but instead was the atonement for the elect only.  Only those who were chosen by God to be saved will be saved. Jesus did not die on the cross for all men but just the few he chose from the beginning. 1 Calvin 4:16

#5 - Irresistible Grace
Calvinists teach that God's chosen elect are given an irresistible grace and that the elect cannot reject God's redemption and salvation no matter how hard they might try.  They teach this despite the fact that the phase "irresistible grace" or any synonymic like phrase in scripture. This far-fetched doctrine is bankrupt of any proof from scripture.

There is no scripture that states something like the following:

The elect whom God chose out of all men to be saved are given a grace that they cannot resist, no matter how hard they try. This grace guarantees that they will come to God. 1 Calvin 5:16

Is there anything like the above in all of the word of God? No, there is nothing even close to it. Grace is always stated to be for all men and twisting grace to make it irresistible is simply abominable.

#6 - Regeneration before Faith
Calvinists unlike every other "Christian" faith including Lutherans believe that man must be regenerated before he can have faith or believe in Christ. This fallacious doctrine does not have any "proof" scripture of any kind clearly stating this sentiment. This doctrine like every other doctrine mentioned in this article is simply a grasping at straws and is actually only developed by human philosophy. There is not a single clear statement in scripture that even intimates the idea.

Ironically, there are hundreds of statements in scripture about faith and not one scripture clearly supports the idea. If there are hundreds of scriptures on faith and believing, would it not make sense that just one would clearly depict faith as coming after regeneration or salvation?  Then consider too that there are many scriptures that show that faith comes before salvation like the following:

Then he brought them out and said, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?” And they said, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household.” Acts 16: 30-31 

Believe and you will be saved is very clearly stated.  There is no statement like the following:

Men cannot have faith until the Holy Spirit has regenerated them. Faith comes after man is born again and saved, therefore it is not in man until this time. 1 Calvin 6:16

In Conclusion
I know---I hear the dyed-in-the-wool Calvinist clamoring right now that there are passages that support all their doctrines above.  The problem is that the scriptures that they use are snippets here and there and that is all they have.  Most false doctrines and heresies are weaved together by multiple passages pulled out of context and this is exactly what the Calvinist is clamoring about.  I don't contest that Calvinists do have scriptures they have knit together but it only works if one weaves them together so that one verse supports the other.  My problem is that no Calvinist doctrine is clearly stated in a SINGLE passage.

When I have brought up this issue previously Calvinists have tried to convince me that doctrines like the Trinity are widely accepted but there is no clear passage.  By using this challenge with me they show that they agree with me that there are no clear passages supporting Calvinism.  But their example of the Trinity is way off base since Matthew 3:14-17 does clearly state the existence of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.  If Calvinists agree that their passages are not clear but that does not matter then how do they ever identify theological error with groups with which they don't agree? Proving theology by providing clear passages is clearly exegesis that can be trusted.

I remind my readers once again that all cults put forth "proof" scriptures and that includes the Mormons and Jehovah Witnesses. What then is the only safe way to prove doctrines? Doctrines can only be proved by clear passages with little or no ambiguity. Such is the true gospel which uses passages like John 3:16 to clearly state what is true:

John 3:16 is truly what a clear passage looks like. That is why it is so often cited by Christians. It is clear and cannot be denied that Christ atoned for all yet Calvinists oppose this clear message because it flies in the face of their doctrines listed above yet without any clear proof.    

I suggest that when you talk to a Calvinist you refuse to engage in a doctrine versus doctrine discussion.  This kind of discussion produces nothing.  I recommend that when you talk to a Calvinist, you ask them to show you just one clear passage that supports their doctrine.  They will not be able to give you even one and will likely try to throw Romans 9 and John 17 at you and when they do, you must tell them that these passages are not clear statements. Then show them one of the clear passages that refute Calvinism like John 3:16-18 and Romans 10:8-17.  They likely won't accept your premise but at least you will have spoken the truth in love.
                                                                                                                      

Darrell Brantingham

(Check out my pithy tweets @confrontcalvin).

Jesus Brought Gifts To Men When He Came

I write this article just a few days before Christmas and I do love the season because of what God has shown me in scripture concerning the coming of our Lord. I know of those who oppose the holiday because some of the roots of Christmas are pagan. I know also those who oppose the materialism and the Santa Claus influence that is alive at Christmas time in America. I know too those who enjoy the season and the family traditions that they have built around it. It is not my intent to judge anyone when it comes to Christmas, whether one rejects it or revels in it.

For me Christmas time is simply a time to celebrate Jesus coming to this earth. I don't celebrate Christ's birthday because scripture never makes that anything and how many years since he has come is insignificant to me.                                                                                                                

But I do celebrate the advent of our Lord Jesus because when he came something tremendous happened for mankind. None of God's plans or purposes could have ever been realized without Jesus coming to the earth. Coming and being born as a man allowed God to redeem man. Jesus came to be the Savior of the world. He came to beat the devil and sin. He came to pay our debt and to become the propitiation for our sins. What Jesus does for us is not a once a year celebration. No, these things are our daily celebration, even moment by moment. How glorious that our Savior came for us by coming in the form of a baby and then completed the work of redemption for us.

But there is a matter that many overlook concerning Jesus coming to this earth. Jesus came bearing gifts in his person when he came. This should not be overlooked and this is the emphasis of this article.

I love John Chapter 1's version of what some folks call the "Christmas" story. While Matthew, Mark and Luke focus on the actual physical manifestation of Jesus which is truly amazing; the gospel of John focuses on who Jesus was when he came, what was in him and what he brought to us.

Let's start with some John 1:

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

2 The same was in the beginning with God.

3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

The first three verses tell us who Jesus was including his origin. Jesus was the Word of God and he was the Word that was with God and he was God. Jesus was the creator of the world.

More from John 1:                                                                                                            

4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men.                                  

5 And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.

6 There was a man sent from God, whose name was John.

7 The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all men through him might believe.

8 He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light.

9 That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.

The next six verses tell us what was in Jesus and begins to tell us the gifts that Jesus brought to men simply by coming to earth. Jesus had life in him and that life was the light of men. Therefore light was brought to man by Jesus coming. Some say that man was totally depraved after the fall and therefore has no ability to respond to God. I don't believe in that idea and even if true, John 1 puts that whole notion to death since John 1 is clear that Jesus brought light for men.

Jesus had life in him and that life brought mankind light.  The life of Jesus as he lived here on earth shined in the darkness and the darkness could not perceive it but his life was the light that became the light of man. If there was total depravity before Jesus came there certainly was not after he came. Verse 7 clearly shows us that John the Baptist came to be a witness and this was his witness: That all men through Christ might believe. John was not the light but he was the witness of the Light.

Verse 9 proclaims marvelously that Jesus was the true light which brought light to every man that has come in to the world. How marvelous! How glorious! This is good news. Light has triumphed over darkness and Jesus has given light to every man. Every man then was given the light to see that Jesus had come but still they must believe in him as verse 7 states.                                          

More John 1:

10 He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not.

11 He came unto his own, and his own received him not.

12 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:

13 Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

Verse 10 lets us know that Jesus had made the world but the world did not know him. Verse 11 is about Jesus coming to his own.  Who were his own?  His own describes the elect which we know through scripture was the nation of Israel. Israel did not recognize or receive Jesus and in fact, rejected him. Despite this, verse 12 tells us that it is those that receive Jesus are given power by him to become his sons but mentions that man must believe on his name for this to take place.  After Jesus came all men could receive Jesus and that is something that the nation of Israel had never done. They had been rejecting God and his invites for thousands of years. But when Jesus came God instituted a new thing. He brought forth a new covenant which was fundamentally based on receiving Jesus and believing on his name.

Verse 13 tells us what happens to those who receive Jesus and believe on his name. They are born of God! How glorious! What a great calling there is for those of us who receive Jesus come in the flesh full of life for us and providing that light that we need so that we might God's children. How awesome is this!

Finally, the final portion of John 1 that I want us to see right now concerning Christ's coming:

14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the

glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

15 John bare witness of him, and cried, saying, This was he of whom I spake, He that cometh after me is preferred before me: for he was before me.

16 And of his fulness have all we received, and grace for grace.

17 For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.

Verse 14 reminds us again that the Word became flesh and lived with man on the earth. John declares his experience of beholding the glory of Jesus in the flesh. But what he states next is very important and that is that Jesus was full of grace and truth. Ha! Yes, Jesus came bearing gifts. The ultimate gift was himself but in preparation for that gift he had come full of grace and truth.

I believe that the grace of God as we know it now was not on the earth until Jesus brought it. Jesus brought the grace and truth that had never been on earth before. It was in his person. Jesus was grace and truth and this is very important for us to understand.

For Verse 16 tells us what we need to know. Out of the fullness of Jesus every man received grace for grace. One grace was exchanged for the second grace and it was a greater grace. Verse 17 tells us the first grace was the law given by Moses but the replacement grace was given by Jesus and truth was given too. Therefore friends, Jesus came full of grace and truth. He exchanged the grace that came by the law and brought us truth too. Grace and truth then are great gifts from Jesus given to us at his coming. This is worth celebrating! It's not about putting up a tree, or buying gifts; it's receiving Jesus full of life which became the light for man. It's not Christmas dinner or hanging up stockings; it's Jesus full of grace and truth.

The coming of Jesus then has powerful effects. He brought men light, grace and truth as gifts by coming to the earth and by staying and completing his mission he gave the ultimate gift which was his life that we might have his life.                                                                                      

Therefore I don't care how you celebrate your Christmas or if you even choose not to.  What I hope none will miss is what Jesus brought to us when he came. He brought gifts we could not have received in any other way and they came packaged in a baby in swaddling cloths.  He brought mankind light which allows all men to see and respond to the gospel. He brought mankind truth which was far greater than what mankind received from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil when mankind ate of it. This truth Jesus brought trumps the knowledge from the tree. He brought grace which is the very inclining of God towards man. When man did not deserve it, grace was God extending himself towards man and giving him all of himself to mankind that we might receive him and have the right to become the sons of God!

Celebrate Jesus! Worship him! Praise God! By his coming into the world he made a way for mankind to receive his coming, his death and resurrection that we might be God's children. In this season then open the word to John 1 and meditate over it and then share the truth of this message to someone. Jesus has come and he came bearing gifts in himself!

Darrell Brantingham

(Check out my pithy tweets @confrontcalvin.)