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)

10 Things You Should Know About Martin Luther

In many Christian circles Martin Luther is held in high regard.  Most people know that he was one of the most well-known of the Reformers that spawned the Reformation. Some know that Luther nailed the 95 theses to the Catholic Church challenging their doctrines and practices and for this we owe the man some gratitude because it needed to be done.

 In fact, Martin Luther was the key initiator of the Reformation.  It is important to know who the key Reformers of the Reformation were, what they believed and how they lived. After all, Jesus said you will know them by their fruit.  Most people do not know some very shocking things about Luther:

#1: Martin Luther was a consenting partner in the murder of other Protestants. 

Luther fully supported his followers when they slaughtered thousands of Anabaptists simply because they believed that when a person came to faith they should be baptized. Can we really trust anyone who actually had a hand in killing so many other Christians?

#2: Martin Luther rejected some of Roman Catholicism but unfortunately kept some of the false doctrines and these doctrines were adopted by many who were involved in the Reformation.

Among his heresies and false doctrines:

• Baptismal Generation: One must be baptized to be saved.
• Infant baptism
• Life and salvation are given to the believers in the sacraments.
• Believed and taught that Mary was not just the mother of Jesus but of all.
• Veneration of Mary.
• Believed and taught that Mary remained a virgin in perpetuity.

Luther taught salvation by faith alone but insisted that salvation also came through works and through the sacraments.

#3: Martin Luther had powerful influence on future Reformed doctrines that would later be known as Calvinism.

Luther's greatest influence later adopted fully by Calvinists was his denial that man has free will. This was perhaps Luther's most passionate belief.  He wrote a book on the subject entitled "On the Bondage of the Will".  In this work Luther argued that man did not have free will after the fall in the garden.  He concluded that man is under Satan's domain and incapable of coming to God unless God removes Satan's hold.  He held that man could not have salvation unless God unilaterally changed man's heart first.  Luther intimated that this must be so because God is sovereign and if man could respond then God's sovereignty would be maligned.

The above is clearly a foundation for what Calvinism believes even to this day.  Luther taught Calvinism before Calvin did.  Calvinism could just as well have been called Lutherism.

#4: Martin Luther attempted to remove several books from the Bible.

Luther made attempts to remove the New Testament books of Hebrews, James, Jude and Revelation from the canon.  Remember that the next time you read from one of these.

#5. Martin Luther is alleged to have made utterly slanderous remarks about Jesus including this one:

Christ committed adultery first of all with the woman at the well about whom St. John tells us. Was not everybody about Him saying: "Whatever has he been doing with her?" Secondly, with Mary Magdalene, and thirdly with the woman taken in adultery whom he dismissed so lightly. Thus even Christ, who was so righteous, must have been guilty of fornication before He died.
(ref. Trishreden, Weimer Edition, Vol. 2, Pg. 107)

#6: Martin Luther openly criticized the Biblical authority of books from the Old Testament:

His statements include:

"The history of Jonah is so monstrous that it is absolutely incredible." ('The Facts About Luther, O'Hare, TAN Books, 1987, p. 202.)

"The book of Esther I toss into the Elbe. I am such an enemy to the book of Esther that I wish it did not exist, for it Judaizes too much and has in it a great deal of heathenish foolishness." (Ibid.)

#7. Martin Luther was anti-semitic and wrote a book called "On the Jews and Their Lies" in which he made several vitriolic statements in regard to his disdain for the Jews.

"Jews are young devils damned to hell." ('Luther's Works,' Pelikan, Vol. XX, pp. 2230.)

"Burn their synagogues. Forbid them all that I have mentioned above. Force them to work and treat them with every kind of severity, as Moses did in the desert and slew three thousand... If that is no use, we must drive them away like mad dogs, in order that we may not be partakers of their abominable blasphemy and of all their vices, and in order that we may not deserve the anger of God and be damned with them. I have done my duty. Let everyone see how he does his. I am excused." ('About the Jews and Their Lies,' quoted by O'Hare, in 'The Facts About Luther, TAN Books, 1987, p. 290.)

Many Nazis used Luther's many anti-semitic comments to validate their desires to exterminate the Jews:

In Daniel Johah Goldhagen's book, Hitler's Willing Executioners, he writes:

"One leading Protestant churchman, Bishop Martin Sasse published a compendium of Martin Luther's antisemitic vitriol shortly after Kristallnacht's orgy of anti-Jewish violence. In the foreword to the volume, he applauded the burning of the synagogues and the coincidence of the day: 'On November 10, 1938, on Luther's birthday, the synagogues are burning in Germany.' The German people, he urged, ought to heed these words 'of the greatest antisemite of his time, the warner of his people against the Jews.'"

Many Nazi's gave credit to Luther for giving the German people their "mandate" to expunge Jews from their nation.  Luther seems to have been a major influencer of Nazi anti-semitism.

#8: Martin Luther turned on fellow Reformer Zwingli.

Zwingli was the other most well-known early Reformer but Luther did not like the man.  Luther hated Zwingli so much that when Zwingli was killed in battle he said: "he got what he deserved.... His death proved I'm right and he's wrong..."

So much for unity and mutual admiration among the early reformers.

#9: Martin Luther actually disliked the Ten Commandments and even went so far as to change them.

He actually took out the second commandment which he did not like and then divided the tenth commandment into commandments #9 and #10.  Regarding his contempt for the Ten Commandments he stated:

“If we allow them – the Commandments – any influence in our conscience, they become the cloak of all evil, heresies and blasphemies” (ref. Comm. ad Galat, p.310).

#10: Martin Luther made comments that condoned and even promoted man sinning.

"If you are a preacher of grace, then preach a true and not a fictitious grace; if grace is true, you must bear a true and not a fictitious sin. God does not save people who are only fictitious sinners. Be a sinner and sin boldly, but believe and rejoice in Christ even more boldly . . . as long as we are here [in this world] we have to sin. . . . No sin will separate us from the Lamb, even though we commit fornication and murder a thousand times a day"
(Letter to Melanchthon, August 1, 1521, American Edition, Luther's Works, vol. 48, pp. 281-82). (Bold emphasis mine)

"When the devil comes to tempt and harass you . . . indulge some sin in hatred of the evil spirit and to torment him . . . otherwise we are beaten if we are too nervously sensitive about guarding against sin . . . I tell you, we must put all the Ten Commandments, with which the devil tempts and plagues us so greatly, out of sight and out of mind."
(Table Talk in De Wette, 5.188; De Wette was a protestant scholar who collected the most significant sayings of Luther in several volumes). (Bold emphasis mine)

In Summary

Jesus said that we would know false teachers by their fruit.  Luther's fruit was bad in just about every way possible.  Everyone should know the truth about Martin Luther.  My intent in this article is not to arbitrarily attack Luther without purpose.  My intent is to expose Luther, the Reformation and Calvinism as having a very faulty foundation that should be questioned, exposed and condemned. The source of Calvinism is the polluted spring of the Reformation and this source is found in the Reformation's founders including the Father of the Reformation, Martin Luther.

I suggest readers of this article also read by blog article "Reformed or Deformed" as it contains more information on the Reformation and its questionable roots.

Darrell Brantingham

(Check out my pithy comments on Twitter @confrontcalvin)

Was the Apostle Paul Divisive?

In writing in opposition to Calvinism while tweeting on Twitter I hear from folks now and then stating that I am being divisive by what I tweet and by what I write on this blog. Some state that what I really should be doing is working to unite all Christians.  Still others state that I should be preaching the gospel to the lost and leave these other issues alone.  Around all these accusations is the greater accusation that I am divisive.

I have tried to respond to these accusers to explain that I am actually not attacking other Christians but instead I am exposing bad doctrine that I am led to believe is "another" gospel.  I also point out a couple of other things out in my defense.

First, I ask where the line should be drawn?  For instance many Mormons and Jehovah Witnesses state that they are Christian.  Is it not okay to expose their bad doctrines and theologies?  Where is the rule that we should only test the doctrines of cults and not doctrines that are in the church too?

Secondly I ask them if Paul was divisive in his actions as recorded by scripture.

I want to consider this question in this article.  Was the Apostle Paul divisive?  It is a great question and a good issue to consider because Paul was overt in his Epistles when stating his concern and even outrage over what he was seeing in the New Testament church that he was so faithful to.

To start with Paul confronted Peter.  Yes, Peter!  Peter was considered by many to be the leader of the New Testament church.  Some say he was the actual leader of the church while others say it was James, the brother of our Lord.  But even if James was the positional leader of the church, Peter was perhaps still regarded the spiritual leader. Who was this upstart named Paul to confront Peter?

But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. For before certain men came from James, he was eating with the Gentiles; but when they came he drew back and separated himself, fearing the circumcision party. And the rest of the Jews acted hypocritically along with him, so that even Barnabas was led astray by their hypocrisy. But when I saw that their conduct was not in step with the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas before them all, “If you, though a Jew, live like a Gentile and not like a Jew, how can you force the Gentiles to live like Jews?”   Galatians 2:11-14 ESV

Paul uses strong language to show how he handled Peter.  He uses the word "oppose" to describe his confrontation with Peter.  Was Paul being divisive and even heavy-handed in his brush-up with Peter?

Paul was just getting started.  He lashed out at the Galatians in his letter to them and he was not gentle. He goes after them:

O foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you?  Galatians 3:1 

How is that for just loving the Galatians for who they were? (sarcasm).  Paul went right for the jugular.  He was very upset with the Galatians because they were allowing themselves to be deceived by keeping the Jewish law and their practice of circumcision as something that had to be done to be saved.  Paul's entire letter has a terse corrective tone and his tirade has to do with their bad theology and acceptance of another gospel.

In Paul's first letter to Timothy, Paul is at it again.  Once again, he names names.

This charge I entrust to you, Timothy, my child, in accordance with the prophecies previously made about you, that by them you may wage the good warfare, holding faith and a good conscience. By rejecting this, some have made shipwreck of their faith, among whom are Hymenaeus and Alexander, whom I have handed over to Satan that they may learn not to blaspheme.          1 Timothy 1:18-20

I wonder what my Twitter followers would think if I started naming names of those whom I had handed over to Satan.  That would cause a bit of a stir, wouldn't it?

 Later in the same letter Paul is at it again.

But avoid irreverent babble, for it will lead people into more and more ungodliness, and their talk will spread like gangrene. Among them are Hymenaeus and Philetus, who have swerved from the truth, saying that the resurrection has already happened. They are upsetting the faith of some. 2 Timothy 2:16-17

The reason Paul names Hymenaeus, Philetus and Alexander is that they were departing from the truth by stating a doctrine Paul did not agree with as they were teaching that the resurrection had already taken place.  Now I thought that we as Christians should not worry about doctrines and not be divided from other Christians even if they are off in their bad doctrines?  By the way, where in scripture does it ever say that?  Paul clearly warns Timothy to avoid speaking with these men.  Was Paul being divisive?

In his second letter to Timothy, Paul describes another situation he had with some believers that were with him while he was bringing the gospel to Asia:

You are aware that all who are in Asia turned away from me, among whom are Phygelus and Hermogenes.     2 Timothy 1:15

There's our Paul again, causing everyone to turn away from him, so divisive! (sarcasm).  Yet here again Paul once again identifies names of men who left him. Remember, this was more than just showing their names to a few hundred Facebook friends.  The names Paul was namng would ring in infamy for hundreds of millions who have read the Bible over the millennia.

This was not the first time that Paul had experienced separation from other believers,  In his early days he had another separation event:

And after some days Paul said to Barnabas, “Let us return and visit the brothers in every city where we proclaimed the word of the Lord, and see how they are.” Now Barnabas wanted to take with them John called Mark. But Paul thought best not to take with them one who had withdrawn from them in Pamphylia and had not gone with them to the work. And there arose a sharp disagreement, so that they separated from each other. Barnabas took Mark with him and sailed away to Cyprus, but Paul chose Silas and departed, having been commended by the brothers to the grace of the Lord. Acts 15:36-41 

So was Paul divisive when he separated from Barnabas?  I mean, after all, it was even over a small matter of a young brother being weak in the Lord and leaving Paul and Barnabas prematurely.  Come on Paul---that's divisive (sarcasm).

The truth friends is this.  In this case and in every other, Paul was not being divisive. Paul was so committed to the gospel that it drove everything he did.  He thought that leaving John Mark would give them a better chance to strengthen the churches that they intended to visit.  Barnabas disagreed and this led to their split.  Interestingly, Luke never mentions an opinion in the matter either from himself or the Lord on whether Paul or Barnabas was right or wrong in the matter.  Therefore God saw it and did not tag either Paul or Barnabas with the "divisive" label.  In fact, God used their separation to increase his kingdom as those going forth had just doubled in size.

Was Paul divisive when he confronted Peter or the Galatians over theological issues? No, he was not and because he did confront them over their theology he was able to preserve the gospel in the case of Peter and to turn the Galatians from following after another gospel and Jesus.

Was Paul divisive when he named out Hymenaeus, Philetus and Alexander for promoting bad doctrine?  No, because Paul understood that bad doctrines destroy the faith of some if left unchecked. Can folks be divisive over theology?  Yes, I am sure that happens especially when believers argue over small interpretations of scripture or over certain practices.  What I am speaking about here is more than the petty squabble of what day believers should assemble to worship on or whether we should have chairs or pews in the church.  There is a difference!  When a confrontation arises over seriously bad doctrines or the acceptance of other gospels then one must speak and contend for the gospel.

Paul was not divisive and neither have many of the great people of God throughout the centuries who contended for the faith by confronting what they considered to be extra-Biblical.  I do not believe that I am divisive and others who like me contend with doctrines that seem as if they are another gospel or which upset people's faith.  You may ask me: "What about unity?  Doesn't that matter?".  Sure it matters but unity at the expense of holding to and defending false doctrine is never enouraged in scripture.  Unity is worthless if it is based upon embracing false doctrines.

As for me I have never ended fellowship with a Calvinist over my disagreement with them over their gospel.  In fact, I love Calvinists and have good friends that are Calvinists.  The attacks against me then that indict me as "divisive" are unwarranted because going after bad doctrine is not a divisive action.  Instead it helps maintain the true gospel.  If no one ever spoke up over all these many years we would not have a true gospel to preach.  How sad that would be!

In my situation, I know that some of the accusations made against me are from Calvinists who just want to shut me up.  I will not be silenced.  I will contend for the faith!

Paul encouraged Timothy to watch his doctrine:

Watch your life and doctrine closely. Persevere in them, because if you do, you will save both yourself and your hearers. 1 Timothy 4:16

Paul expressly wrote that all believers contend for the faith:

Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.  Jude 1:3

So the next time someone tells you that you are being divisive for contending for good doctrine and exposing bad theology, ask them a question:  "Was the Apostle Paul Divisive?"

Darrell Brantingham

(Check out my divisive---er---pithy tweets on Twitter @confrontcalvin)

The Dead Guy Lie

Many Calvinists use what I call "the dead guy lie" to teach that man cannot respond to God.  I do not accuse them of lying on purpose because I don't think that is the case. However a lie is anything that is false and yet still stated as being true no matter the intention of the originator. The dead guy lie is a fable and it is used to shore up the Calvinist doctrine that regeneration occurs before faith instead of the traditional New Testament based view that man must believe in order to be saved.

There are multiple problems with this fable that many Calvinists now teach on a regular basis.  My intention in this article is not to just single out John MacArthur because other Calvinists hold to this same theorem.  Still, I will use MacArthur's teaching because he is so good at expressing this ill-conceived analogy that has now become Calvinist doctrine.

John MacArthur's blog "Grace to You" contains a teaching entitled "The Doctrine of Absolute Inability".  Here he teaches his dead guy theorem using John 11, the story of Christ raising Lazarus from the dead:                                                                                                                

And then verse 43, most interesting.  “And when He had said these things, He cried out with a loud voice, ‘Lazarus, come forth.’ ”Now what interests me here is that Jesus gave a command to a dead man.  I’ve done a lot of funerals.  I’ve seen a lot of dead people.  I’ve never asked any of them to do anything, nor has anybody else.  Especially would I never say to a dead man, “Bill, come forth.”  I mean, you wouldn’t waste words.  You’d look foolish.  Dead men can’t hear.  Dead men can’t think.  Dead men can’t respond cause they’re dead and dead means the absolute inability to do anything in response to any stimulus.  There’s no will.  There’s no power to think or act.  But, look at verse 44. “He who had died came forth.”  Lazarus did exactly what Jesus asked him to do.  Amazing.  He must have sort of stumbled out of there because “he was bound hand and foot with wrappings.  And his face was wrapped around with a cloth and Jesus said to then, ‘Unbind him and let him go.’”Dead men can’t respond.  Dead men can’t obey commands.  He couldn’t, but he did.  He did what was impossible.

How?  How is it possible for a dead man to do what Jesus told him to do?  We all know the answer.  Because Christ gave him the ability to do it.  If Christ hadn’t given him the life, he couldn’t have obeyed.

There are some substantial problems with MacArthur's use of an analogy that equates a biologically dead man with a spiritually dead man.

Problem #1:  It is philosophy that MacArthur is teaching above.
The reasoning used by MacArthur is entirely based on human reasoning and philosophy. His argument has its roots in Calvin's "Institutes of Christian Religion" where Calvin quotes philosophers to convince his readers that man is so depraved he has no ability to respond to God.  MacArthur's reasoning above is clearly extra-Biblical and is pure human reasoning.   His entire diatribe comes strictly from his own human understanding.

Problem #2:  His teaching tactic is "bait and switch".                                             

MacArthur derives the basis for his central point from a story recorded about Jesus raising Lazarus from the dead.  He then reads in to the passage what he wants it to say about a doctrine that really has nothing to do with his thesis in the first place.  The Biblical story about Lazarus is about death and being raised from the dead by Jesus but MacArthur changes it to mean something that simply is not in the text. He baits the reader into learning about death but then switches it to support a thesis of his own making.  It is simply bad exegesis to anchor a doctrine on a story where the whole message is changed from its original intent.                                                                              

Problem #3:   It has no scriptural basis or foundation.
MacArthur uses the Lazarus account to build a doctrine but the passage lends him no help except that it refers to death.  In fact, there are no scriptures that speak specifically to what MacArthur teaches in his teaching above.  No Biblical passage equates spiritual death with physical death in the manner that MacArthur does and yet this is the absolute center of MacArthur's Calvinism.  What MacArthur squeezes out of the story of Lazarus is all he has as Biblical substance and even here he does his exegesis by his own bias.

Problem #4:  Overemphasis on equating spiritual death with physical death.
MacArthur and many Calvinists make the error of equating spiritual death with physical death.  Who says that spiritual death and physical death are the same?  They are clearly not the same.  One has to do with the death of man spiritually which has to do with man's spirit.  The other has to do with the death of the body. The two deaths have some similarities but in truth are radically different.

When Adam and Eve sinned they became spiritually dead but did they cease to function?  The Bible records no difference about them after the fall except to note that they had come to know good and evil because they ate from that tree.  No scripture in Genesis or any other book in the Bible states that Adam and Eve or mankind lost their ability to reason or move in free will due to the fall and their spiritual death.                                                                                                  

Who says a physically dead man is exactly the same as a spiritually dead man?  No one but Calvinists.  Which scripture states this clearly?  None.                                                    

Physically dead men can't reason but spiritually dead men can.  Physically dead men can't hear but spiritually dead men can.  Physically dead men can't reason but spiritually dead men can reason. MacArthur's entire theorem above is bogus!  He is making the conjectured error of equating spiritually dead men with physically dead man.  This is nothing but whimsical philosophy and his argument does not have merit.

Problem #5:  It is not coherent reasoning.
MacArthur clearly states above that a dead man can't hear if one calls him out but that is exactly what Jesus did.  Jesus made a dead man hear!  Read the passage again.  That is what the Bible records. The literal scriptural statement declares that Lazarus heard Jesus and then was made alive.  If Jesus can walk on water and is truly sovereign then he can make a dead man hear, can't he?  If Jesus can raise a dead man he can make a dead man hear.  That is exactly what takes place with Lazarus---Jesus speaks to a dead man and he hears and then comes to life!  Even MacArthur's main point is misstated by him.  If a physically dead man can hear and respond---surely a physically alive man though spiritually dead can hear and respond!

Secondly, MacArthur paints himself into a corner he can't get out of.  If he is right in his premise that a dead man can't reason then a dead man can't be brought to life either. Right?  Has MacArthur gone to any funeral and seen a dead man be brought to life simply because a person spoke to him?  No.  If dead man Bill can't come forth because someone called him then Bill cannot be made alive either. MacArthur can't have it both ways! Physically dead men don't come alive again just like they don't hear or think.  If a physically dead man can't respond at all as MacArthur intimates then how can he respond by being made alive?  He can't if one is consistent in their thinking!  The analogy is carried too far by MacArthur and is interpreted with his Calvinist bias.

Problem #6:  MacArthur glosses over what Jesus said before he called Lazarus forth.

Jesus said to her, “I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in Me, though he may die, he shall live. And whoever lives and believes in Me shall never die. Do you believe this?”

MacArthur mentions the above verse in his blog prior to what I copied above but never discusses Christ's point that "he who believes in Me, though he may die, he shall live. And whoever lives and believes in Me shall never die."  Why?  Because it is an inconvenient truth for MacArthur and Calvinists to admit that Jesus clearly stated that believing is what makes a man live and it is what makes him never die.  Then he asks Mary if she believes what he has just said to prove his point. Here, right smack dab in MacArthur's chosen text we find Jesus declaring that people must believe to have life. The truth is that spiritually dead men don't come to life until they believe.  In fact just before Jesus called out to Lazarus scripture records:

And then Jesus said to her, ‘Didn’t I say to you that if you believe you’ll see the glory of God?’                                                                                                                         

Jesus mentions "believing" again even because his point is that men must believe to see the glory of God.  Christ's whole point is that those who believe in him will live and even if they die in the natural yet they will live eternally. MacArthur never mentions this point but instead reads in to the text his dubious concoction that dead men can't respond.                    

Problem #7:  The Holy Spirit's work in salvation is ignored.
MacArthur's dead man theorem gives no place at all for the Holy Spirit's work and activity.  Scripture clearly states that Holy Spirit has been sent to convict the heart of sinful man.  Ironically, the problem is that Calvinists don't give enough credit here to the Holy Spirit and are only focused on their bogus stance that man has no ability to respond.  The Holy Spirit is here on earth to confront men's hearts so that they might repent and believe.

And when he comes, he will convict the world concerning sin and righteousness and judgment: concerning sin, because they do not believe in me; John 16:8-9 ESV

It is the Holy Spirit who convicts man while he is still dead in his sins.  Conviction comes before salvation, not after.  Calvinism's bogus idea that man cannot respond leaves the Holy Spirit out of the equation and this is not acceptable.  Even if man was unable to respond due to his fall in the garden, the Holy Spirit is capable of making man respond. To say that man cannot respond is to remove the sovereignty of God from the Holy Spirit and provides that man's inability to respond is greater than the power of the Holy Spirit.

Problem #8:  Raising a physically dead man to life is different than raising a spiritually dead man to life.  
This is huge.  While MacArthur focuses on what dead man can't do by analogy he ignores how dead men are made alive and this is absolutely his greatest error.  Jesus spoke to Lazarus and Lazarus heard his voice and was made alive.  This is how Jesus raised people from their physical death.

However Jesus made the spiritually dead alive not by simply calling their name out.  No indeed! There was only one way that Jesus could make man spiritually alive and that was through the cross and his subsequent resurrection from the dead.  Jesus made the spiritually dead people alive by dying on the cross and by rising from the dead.

I will say it again.  Stating that physically dead people are the same as spiritually dead people is pure folly because their being raised to life is very different.   Raising men from the dead physically is abundantly different then making spiritually dead people alive.  Otherwise Jesus would not have needed to go to the cross---he would have simply called us all by name and we would have all been made spiritually alive. There would have been no need for Jesus to die and pay for our sins if all he had to do was call us out from the dead by name.

Problem #9:  MacArthur and Calvinist's ignore the overwhelming scriptural view that man believes and then is saved.  This problem is Calvinism's biggest for it is simply undeniable that scripture is clear about believing before salvation:

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

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

They replied, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved—you and your household.” Acts 15:11

If you declare with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.  Romans 10:10

There are many other scriptures that communicate the same as the above.  It is patently clear that those who are born-again are those who believe first, then are saved and made alive.  Regeneration does not happen before faith!  There is no path for MacArthur's dead man theorem. The dead guy lie is a bridge to nowhere since it has no scriptural foundation and is sheer fantasy based on an illogical and unscriptural analogy.                                                                                

Bridge to Nowhere

                                                 

The whole premise that God first makes alive those who are dead and then they have the capacity to believe is pure poppycock and is not supported at all by scripture.  Don't believe the dead guy lie because it is simply dead philosophy.  Instead simply believe what the scripture says with great clarity dozens of times---man must believe in order to be saved.

The next time you hear someone quote their ideas from the "dead guy lie", stop them and tell them that the analogy has no validity.  Then either quote my problems above or send them to this blog.  It is important to pull down strongholds of false teaching that propagate another gospel.

Darrell Brantingham

(Check out my pithy comments on my Twitter @confrontcalvin)

Why Fight Calvinism?

Recently I received a compliment from a distant relative after posting an invitation to read this blog on Facebook.  The woman thanked me but also stated that "no one that I know cares about this stuff let alone writes about it."  The truth of her comment caused me to ponder as to why I confront Calvinism.  Is it true that no one really cares about Calvinism?  Does it matter if I make a stand against Calvinism?  Why fight Calvinism in the first place?                    

For some of us, Calvinism is an important matter whether we are for it or against it but the observation that most people could care less about it is probably true.  I acknowledge that for most people Calvinism is not on their radar.  This was true for me until around three years ago when Calvinism came crashing in to my world and then God rose me up to warn others about the dangers of it.

Some of us do care about the dangers of Calvinism because they are very real.  I have heard from others that like me oppose Calvinism and are voicing their concerns.  These folks have expressed gratitude for my boldness in taking on Calvinism as aggressively as I have.  They say that it strengthens their own resolve.  I think Calvinism may affect people like cancer does.  No, I am not saying anything weird like Calvinism is a killer or disease like cancer.  What I am saying is that most people don't notice cancer until it strikes someone close to them and then it is something that becomes important in their life and they make an effort to understand everything about it.

Most folks that are passionate about Calvinism have had it affect them or someone they know in a tangible way.  I have seen this happen multiple times in the last few years as I have seen several people get affected by Calvinism in some way.  I think a wary awareness of Calvinism or Reformed theology is on the rise today and I am encouraged by it.

I have also heard from Calvinists who find my tweets on Twitter.
Most of these folks use Twitter's search tool to find my tweets and then

reply to them with questions or pejorative comments.  Some of the comments say that my tweets are divisive.  They may be right in some respects but my intent is not to divide but to challenge and confront Calvinism.  I especially want to warn people so they at least take a good hard scriptural look at these doctrines before deciding how to respond to them.  I understand that a person will pay a price for standing up against something that seems dangerous or harmful but it still needs to be done.      

The Apostle Paul is a strong Biblical example of this.  He put into writing his criticism of doctrinal problems with others and it became scripture that we now read about thousands of years later.  Was Paul divisive for trying to maintain a true and pure doctrine?  Of course not.  Paul simply battled for the truth even named names of people he confronted for bad doctrine.  Paul records that he confronted Cephas (Peter) in Galatians 2:11 saying:

When Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face because he stood condemned.

Paul's comment is pretty strong language considering the man he confronted is thought by many to be the leader of the young Christian church at that time.  Paul wrote this statement to the Galatians because he was confronting them about running after another gospel and another Jesus.  Later Paul named names again when he wrote to Timothy:

Avoid godless chatter, because those who indulge in it will become more and more ungodly.  Their teaching will spread like gangrene. Among them are Hymenaeus and Philetus, who have departed from the truth. They say that the resurrection has already taken place, and they destroy the faith of some. 2 Timothy 2:16-18

Paul confronted Hymenaeus and Philetus because of their theological belief as these two men believed and taught that the resurrection had already taken place.  Paul concluded that the men were destroying the faith of some.  Was Paul being divisive?

The fact is that Paul believed in contending for the faith:                                  

Dear friends, although I was very eager to write to you about the salvation we share, I felt compelled to write and urge you to contend for the faith that was once for all entrusted to God's holy people. Jude 1:3

Paul also told Timothy:

Watch your life and doctrine closely. Persevere in them, because if you do, you will save both yourself and your hearers.  1 Timothy 4:16

My point is that Paul was neither divisive nor did he intend to be divisive.  Paul loved the body of Christ and was deeply grieved when folks "departed from the truth."  I am certainly no Paul but this is my heart too.  I love the truth and I am grieved when people I love and care for depart from the truth.  My heart has grieved deeply when I have seen friends whom I love and respect depart from the truth by adopting Calvinism.  My agenda is not to attack Calvinists as people or individuals.  I have no agenda to divide the body or to slander anyone.  My goal is simply to confront the doctrine of Calvinism because I am convinced that it is a dangerous departure from the truth.  My conviction is to contend for the faith that was entrusted to me as one of God's holy people.

A Reformed friend of mine asked me why I was not confronting other doctrines and teachers that were in his mind much worse than Calvinism.  That is a good question and I will answer that here. There are likely more but I am going to list (5) five reasons why I fight Calvinism and why everyone should care about the dangers that I share here.

#1: Calvinism is a Departure from the Truth

I believe that Calvinism is a departure from the truth.  Paul was concerned that some departed from the truth and we should share his concern.  I don't discuss the doctrines of Calvinism in this article because I address my concerns in other blog posts.  Suffice it to say that Calvinism is a clear departure from the truth.  Please read my other blogs on Calvinism.

#2: Calvinism Destroys the Faith of Some

The result of some departing from the truth and preaching another gospel is that it destroys the faith of some.  Bad doctrine yields bad fruit.  Ironically Calvinists would not like what Paul states about faith being destroyed since they don't believe the elect could ever have their faith destroyed. However, this passage is clear that Paul is concerned that someone's faith can be destroyed by bad doctrine.

The truth is that I have seen the faith of some damaged by Calvinism when they began to believe it.  I saw one man pull completely away from fellowship with other believers after reading Pink's book "Sovereignty of God".  Another man I know had one of the greatest hearts for the lost that I have ever seen and God used him as an evangelist.  He too read Pink's book and announced that he had changed his thinking completely.  It appears now that he no longer has a heart and passion for the lost.  His love for the lost was destroyed by departing from the truth by reading a book on Calvinism and accepting its conclusions.

There is substantial evidence that people change when they receive Calvinist teaching as true and turn from the sound doctrine found in scripture.

#3: Calvinism is pervasive and far too popular.

One of my greatest concerns is the following that Calvinism has today.  Led by a new dynamic group some refer to as the "New Calvinists", Calvinism under the name of the "Reformed" label has found a spark of popularity today.

A poll by George Barna in 2010 showed that 36% of American Christians identify as Calvinists. This pervasiveness then is why I believe God raised me up to confront Calvinism.  I know there is a lot of doctrinal garbage coming at the body of Christ today but some of it has little affect on people's lives and most of it does not resonate with people.  The threats even by cults like Mormonism and Jehovah's Witnesses do not concern me as much as Calvinism.  Why?  Because these groups have been clearly identified as not being in the "Christian" family of churches because much of what they teach and believe is not Biblical.  I know it happens but I have never known an authentic Christian who became a Mormon or Jehovah's witness.  I can't say the same about Calvinism as I have seen some friends get sucked into it.

Most people have a red flag go up when approached by someone about Mormon or
Jehovah's Witness theology.  My goal is to warn people so that they

will react in the same way when Calvinism is introduced to them as truth.      
                                                                            
#4: Calvinism misrepresents God.

This is a big one for me!  I am not going to spend a lot of time here but I spend a lot of time pointing this issue out on my tweets on Twitter and in other articles posted on this blog.  I am convinced that the great awesome God of love is being horribly misrepresented by Calvinism.  Frankly, I am not sure why more people are not upset about this too.

Calvinism makes God unfair by proclaiming that God predestined only some of be saved while also predestining some to be punished for eternity for no reason at all.  Even worse, many Calvinists teach that God actually created evil and even desires that men do evil so that God's purposes are fulfilled. This misrepresentation of God is a strong motivator for me and is a key as to why I confront Calvinism.

#5: There must arise a standard.

My goal is not just to make a lot of noise or to divide people or churches.  My intention is to assist somehow in raising awareness as to what Calvinism really teaches.  Many get sucked in to the Reformed movement but really don't know what Calvinism is really about.  I want to raise a standard against this dangerous theology. I want to make a difference and I want to provide support and encouragement for those who oppose Calvinism like I do.

Three years ago I did a search in Google on Calvinism and what I found was disconcerting.  Most websites at that time supported Calvinism and there seemed to be little opposition.   Recently my Google searches reveal that this has changed dramatically.  There seems to be at least as many sites and blogs challenging Calvinism as there are supporting it.  I think that the New Calvinists have had their day in the sun and the pendulum is now swinging back.  Faithful men and women are now rising up and speaking about their concerns with Calvinism.

More people every day are recognizing Calvinism when they hear it and they understand it for what it is.  The backlash is rising and it is beginning to have some real effect.  I am committed to confront Calvinism as long as the Holy Spirit moves me to do so.  I invite others who have Paul's jealous heart for the saints to join me and others in contending for the faith that has been entrusted to us.

Frankly, I would rather write about the great glorious truths in scripture and not worry about Calvinism but the Holy Spirit has called me to contend with Calvinism and so I must lay down my own desires and obey him.

We all need to warn our friends and family before they are approached about Calvinism.  If they have not been exposed to Calvinism then we should give them a quick overview of Calvinism and why it is dangerous. You can also point them to my blog or some the other good blogs online.  There are also some excellent YouTube videos that expose Calvinism.  For those who want a very comprehensive understanding,  I recommend Dave Hunt's book entitled: "What Love is This?".

If you don't know your pastor's stance on Reformed theology, I recommend you simply ask him what he believes about it.  Then suggest that your pastor speak out about Calvinism or bring in someone like me to teach on its dangers.

Let me be clear.  Our standing against Calvinism does not mean we hate or despise Calvinists.  We can love the Calvinist but loathe these doctrines.  Many Calvinists are likely saved too because they are saved just like any other born-again Christian and that is by having faith in Jesus.

Why should good believers rise up against Calvinism?  They should because they love God and they love the true gospel of Christ.  They should rise up because they love the lost and the Good Shepherd who left heaven to die for them.

Let us not shrink back in the face of Calvinism for any reason even if it leads to persecution.  Paul suffered most of his persecution from others who called themselves Christians, especially the Judaizers.  The Judaizers were Christians who insisted that believers must conform to Old Covenant laws.  They were ruthless in their persecution and confronted Paul in every city that he visited.  They were instrumental in having Paul beaten, whipped, stoned and imprisoned.  Let us not be afraid of anyone who might get angry with us because we stand against the doctrines of Calvinism.

What I desire most is the opportunity to share the true glorious gospel that Christ has given the whole world and I pray that this will be in the hearts of all true believers.  We are not ashamed of the real gospel and therefore we will defend it and proclaim it when given opportunity.

Let's rise up, take a stand against Calvinism and proclaim the true gospel which is truly the GOOD NEWS!

Darrell Brantingham                                                                         

(Check out my pithy tweets on Twitter at @confrontcalvin)

Real Grace and Hi-Jacked Grace!

The Biblical word "Grace" just might be the biggest and most profound word ever used in the Bible or anywhere in the universe for that matter.  It is big and profound in meaning and therefore the word is often misunderstood and misused.  Perhaps the word is misunderstood because grace from God is such a foreign concept to man.  Like God man can love, show mercy and even forgive but man cannot give grace at least not in the Biblical sense.  This misunderstanding of grace is as true for theologians as it is for the masses.

For instance, no one has hi-jacked grace and its true meaning and use more than Calvinism. Calvinists reduce grace into something that is not even recognizable as it relates to the original word that we read in the New Testament.  More on that coming up.

But first, what is true, authentic grace?

Grace is one of a few words that cannot be defined by a simple check in the dictionary. That is simply useless.  It can only be defined and understood by carefully looking at the Greek word used in the New Testament and by the use of the word in scriptural context.  No other definition will work with this incredible word that the Bible simply calls "grace".

The Greek sets the basis for understanding this word grace.  Grace is the Greek word "charis" and its meaning in the Greek is deep and profound.  First, the word means "as a gift or blessing brought to man by Jesus Christ".  Grace was a gift brought to man by Jesus Christ!  If one strays away from this pure Greek definition then surely the word will be corrupted.  John 1 sets the foundation of this first definition of grace with no ambiguity:

For of His fullness we have all received, and grace upon grace. For the Law was given through Moses; grace and truth were realized through Jesus Christ. John 1;16-17 (NASB)

John 1 is clear that all have received grace upon grace.  Grace is realized through Jesus.  Jesus is grace!  This passage seems to be foreign to most folks who use the word grace in various kinds of discussion for many do not seem to understand or discern the word.  Grace is often used nonchalantly or even as a buzz word in Christian discussions and songs. Unfortunately this activity cheapens the word.  Jesus was grace and he brought grace!  Grace is only realized through Jesus.  This basic understanding of grace should be understood anytime one reads the Bible and sees the word grace. To understand otherwise is folly.

As awesome as this is I am not finished defining grace from its original Greek meaning. The Helps word study found on BibleHub.com explains that charis (grace) means:

"favor, disposed to, inclined, favorable towards, leaning towards to share benefit" and "freely extended to give Himself away to people" because He is "always leaning toward them".  

 The word study definition continues for charis as the word:

"answers directly to the Hebrew (OT) term Kaná ("grace, extension-toward").  Both refer to God freely extending Himself (His favor, grace), reaching (inclining) to people because He is disposed to bless (be near) them.

Isn't this powerful!  Everyone should read the definition multiple times so this understanding of grace becomes their understanding.  Grace is God inclining himself to mankind.  Grace is God leaning towards man to share benefit.  Grace is God leaning towards us and extending himself to us!  Before Jesus brought grace there was a chasm between man and God.  It was only grace that breached this chasm.  Before Jesus brought grace there was a wall of hostility between God and man but grace removed that wall.  Grace then is God leaning towards and extending himself to man and this becomes a continual supply.  It came through Jesus and it now stays with us through him!

Grace is not just amazing in that it saved a wretch like me.  No, grace is amazing because God came to save every wretch by extending his very self to us.  Grace is God extending himself to us by his coming and is made finished by Jesus extending his arms so that his hands could have nails driven into them.  How awesome is grace!

I am still not done defining grace as described in the Greek.  I told you it was a BIG word!

Finally we come to what most believers know about grace.  Grace is also God's unmerited favor. Grace is not something that mankind deserves yet God gives it by literal extension of himself.

So let's put it altogether.  Here is my definition of grace:  Grace is God so loving mankind that he fully leaned towards man and reached out to him with unmerited favor through his sending forth of Jesus Christ in to the world, who embodied grace and brought grace to man.  Grace is the supply of God that provides man with all he needs for salvation, sanctification and glorification.

So now that we know what grace is I want to explain what is not grace.  Calvinism slices and dices grace so that is not even recognizable from the grace that is found in scripture and in the Greek word as I proved above.  Some have referred to Calvinism's TULIP as the "doctrines of grace" but it is hard to understand why since Calvinistic grace removes almost all of what I have just described that it is. Calvinism limits grace so horribly that it is hardly discernible with the Biblical grace that we just defined.

Calvinism does not teach the grace as defined as above.  Calvinists teach a redefined "lesser" grace in my opinion. They teach "irresistible" grace which states that only the elect will respond to God and that the elect cannot resist coming to Christ due to this grace.  They teach that grace is only for the elect and rejoice in their invention that grace is fixed only for the elect.  The Bible never speaks of irresistible grace either by direct mention or indirect assertion for that matter.  It is simply a philosophical fabrication by Calvinists who need the doctrine of irresistible grace to keep all of Calvinism from falling to the ground like a house of cards.

Some Calvinists even slice grace into pieces.  They say that there is a "common" grace which is for everyone while there is a "saving" grace that is for the elect only which is irresistible.  This is clearly not Biblical teaching.

The Bible teaches that grace is for all men:

and all are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. Romans 3:24

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

God's grace is clearly given to all mankind.  Grace can be rejected and the most amazing thing is that men do reject it.  How can man reject grace?  It is hard to understand why anyone would reject this amazing grace.  Imagine yourself in a situation that you might have with someone.  Imagine you are at an event and you see someone you know who has something against you and you humble yourself and make the effort to extend yourself to reconcile with that person but the person refuses to be reconciled no matter what you say or do. God's grace reconciled all men to him but some will not be reconciled by their own rebellious choice.

By grace Jesus has come and made himself a sacrifice for all sinners. That is grace. Demeaning grace to mean that Jesus came for only a few people who receive irresistible influence is absolutely foreign to scripture and purely concocted by Calvinism agenda.

The most amazing thing about grace is not that it saved a wretch like me as the song intimates.  No, what makes grace so amazing is that God extended himself to wretched mankind in the first place and then died to save every wretch on the planet.  That is amazing grace!  Grace is not so amazing if it is only meted out to a few and kept from others.  Amazing grace is unmerited favor for all!

As to Arminian prevenient grace I have read some different teaching on it.  Some maintain that it is a special grace that works on people right before the moment of salvation.  This I do not believe for it is too limiting in many respects.  I am convinced that grace came in, through and by Jesus Christ. The grace that he brought and established is now his constant supply to believers.  There is no good scriptural argument that gives life to the idea that there is some kind of "special" grace that is at work with the believer right before someone gets saved.

However I think I agree with the second idea on prevenient grace that I encountered because it states that the Holy Spirit moves on a person's heart to believe in Christ and his work of redemption which is Biblical.  However I don't see any reason to give this understanding a special name like prevenient grace.  I prefer to refer to it as scripture does: grace.

Does God initiate salvation?  Yes, in every way possible.  He does so by grace by extending himself to man through the coming of Jesus.  He does so by grace by dying on the cross.  He does so by grace by sending the Holy Spirit to work upon the hearts of man.  Man never initiates his own salvation. Man only responds because God has given him the ability to respond to him.

Grace does not need any help!  Grace is not irresistible, common, saving or prevenient. Preceding the word "grace" with these kinds of words is quite frankly leaning on philosophy instead of scripture and is used for building doctrine that is foreign to the use of the word in scripture.  Grace is grace and does not need to be given special names which cheapen the meaning of this wonderful give God has given us.

Biblical grace is what brought Jesus to us and it is what propelled him to the cross for us. This is the grace by which we are saved.  This is the grace for which we bless and thank God.  This is our awesome supply that never stops.  Embrace this grace my friends!

Grace was so important to the Apostle Paul that he often started and ended his letters with a salutation like this:

Grace be with you all.

Darrell Brantingham

(Check out my pithy tweets on Twitter at @confrontcalvin)

Calvinism's Massive Biblical Errors

Calvinism is an amalgamation of doctrines based more on philosophy than scripture.  How Calvinism and its doctrines are created are fascinating, puzzling and even mesmerizing.  In the end though Calvinism's bad theology can be traced to their exegetical methodologies.

For those that may not know, exegesis is a term that means the "critical explanation of the text". Therefore a good exegesis is one that correctly interprets and understands the Biblical text while poor exegesis uses poor techniques and tactics to interpret scripture. A good approach for Bible study is the "Berean Approach" and this is accomplished by researching the subject matter using only authoritative resources like scripture, concordances, lexicons etc.  Calvinism does use some of this approach but unfortunately has adopted other methods to develop doctrine as well.

Don't get me wrong.  I am not saying that Calvinists are motivated to inveigle folks to believe their doctrines.  I don't believe they are deliberately misleading people. Calvinists passionately believe their doctrines and there is no harm in that.  The problem is that poor exegesis has simply become a long standing practice to support Calvinist doctrines.

Calvinism is supported by many errors in exegesis.  Many of the errors of exegesis described below are often used in various combinations in order to support their doctrines.  Calvinism's doctrines have been developed in error by one or more of the following exegetical practices:

Out of Context
Most bad doctrines use scripture out of context to support their beliefs.  Cults that are Christian in name only always pull scripture out of context to build their doctrines. Calvinists definitely practice this technique.  One example is Romans 9 where Paul discusses Israel and the nation's rebellion towards God along with the inclusion of the Gentiles, Calvinists pull out a couple of verses in the middle of the passage to use as proof verses for Unconditional Election.  However the context of the passage is not about the personal election of the saved or unsaved.  The context of Romans 9 is about Israel's unbelief and God's subsequent invitation of the Gentiles to have relationship with him.  

Using this practice, Calvinists simply skirt over the main message and pluck a verse or two out of context that will support their thesis.  This is simply bad exegesis and must be called out as so.  This technique is used in almost every proof text that Calvinism has established as a "proof text".  Another obvious example of this technique is Ephesians 1 where the discussion is about God's election of those already saved to God's great purposes.  The entire chapter is taken out of context because Ephesians 1 is simply not about personal salvation.  John 6:37 is another egregious example of this. In this case, the verse is cherry-picked from the surrounding text and seems to mean one thing when read on its own but means quite something else when one considers the full context.

Not Discerning the Whole of Scripture
It is the practice of Calvinism to use a few unclear scriptural passages to build and support its doctrines.  Interestingly then is this practice by Calvinists who are guilty of massive exegetical error when they do not compare their doctrines against the whole context of the Bible.  For example, one of the reasons that Unconditional Election is not true is because it is in major conflict with the Bible's overall ubiquitous conclusion that God is truly loving and fully just.  Every doctrine must be tested against the whole of the Bible and Calvinism is guilty of not doing this kind of diligent exegesis on their core proof passages.

Invalid Cross-References
Almost all Christians use the practice of cross-referencing one scripture to another passage to help put together scriptural ideas and themes.  However Calvinists use invalid cross-referencing to build support for a proof text.  Calvinists often list proof verses in their material to support their doctrines Sometimes the cross-referenced scripture has no validity because it states something else altogether. In other cases it is invalid because it simply mentions the same topic but does not support the scripture first being referenced.  A good example of this was a book I read recently supporting Calvinism doctrine that quoted 1 Peter 2:24 as one of eleven "proof" passages for Limited Atonement:

He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, that we might die to sin and live to righteousness.  By his wounds you have been healed.

Excuse me, but the above passage is about atonement but there is nothing here that comes close to intimating that atonement is limited.  Why is this one of the eleven best scriptures that the Calvinist author could choose to support Limited Atonement?

Redefinition of Words
Redefining Biblical words is a technique in which Calvinists excel.  They do it with some of the most important words in the Bible including "sovereignty", "grace" and "faith" to name just a few. For example "Sovereignty" by definition means "supreme power or authority" but Calvinists interpret the word to mean a God who predetermines everything. This is absolutely a redefinition of the word. Sovereignty does not mean complete predetermination of all things.  The word simply refers to an entity who has the supreme power.  The redefinition of key Bible terms is not only bad exegesis---it is egregious exegesis and it is all too common within Calvinism.

Foundational Ambiguity
This is the exegetical remiss of accepting a doctrine even though it is not clearly stated in any one passage in scripture.  A. W. Pink, revered and notable Calvinist author and teacher, wrote in the first chapter of his book on Election "it has not pleased the Holy Spirit to give us one complete and orderly setting forth of the doctrine of Election".  Recently when I wrote an article on Pink's take, every Calvinist that contacted me agreed with Pink that there is really no clear passage in scripture. That surprised me a little but shows me that they must admit this weakness of not having even one clear passage that explains perhaps their most revered doctrine.  In fact, none of Calvinism's doctrines have clear explanations.                                                                                        

This should be a huge red flag!  Calvinists trying to combat the charge that this is bad exegesis have told me that this is true of other key doctrines in scripture like the doctrines of the "Trinity" and the "Incarnation". This is an absurd defense.  Both doctrines are accepted by most Christians and have scriptures that clearly define them.  The Trinity is truly defined by scripture that describes Christ's baptism and the Incarnation is very clear in a number of passages including John 1.  A doctrine of the importance of Unlimited Election would surely have had at least one clear passage that lays it our clearly if it were legitimate.

Errant Inferences
Calvinists often refer to a proof passage that infers something but does not specifically say what they want it to.  This is often used to support Biblical passages that Calvinists use as proof texts.  This is very true concerning Unconditional Election.  Even though, there is not one passage that states that some are chosen while others are not, Calvinists infer their conclusion by reading into the passage something that is clearly not there.  For example, Ephesians 1 is used as proof text for Calvinist Election yet the passage never even mentions that some are not chosen.  This does not bother Calvinists because they say the passage infers that some men are not chosen if some are.  This is weak scriptural interpretation and needs to be called out.  Inference is especially dangerous when coupled with other exegetical techniques mentioned in this article.

Interpretation Through Philosophy
This technique of using philosophy to interpret scripture was rampant by the early fathers of Reformed theology.  Augustine was instrumental in his use of philosophy and Calvin used this philosophy in his exegesis extensively some 1000 years later when he developed the doctrines that we know today as Calvinism.  His writings are full of humanistic philosophy and he often quotes the philosophers of men as reason to build his doctrinal conclusions.  The philosophers that influenced Augustine and his theology include Plotinus, Cicero and Aristotle. Many regard Augustine as much a philosopher as theologian and this is a valid observance.  The fact is that he mixed philosophy and scripture to develop his own theological ideas which is dangerous.                                

I was astounded when I read John Calvin's "Institutes of The Christian Religion" because he did the same.  Not only did Calvin often quote Augustine, he also mentions Plato nine times, Socrates four times and Cicero seven times.  It is clear that Calvin valued philosophy some of which he contends with and some of which he accepted as good. Either way it is a valuation of philosophy that he establishes. This valuation of philosophy led Calvin to draw upon it to form his own conclusions just as Augustine had previously.  Calvinism is formed as much by philosophy as it is by scripture and this is simply dangerous.

Errant Presuppositions
Presupposition is defined as a thing tacitly assumed beforehand at the beginning of a line of argument or course of action.  It has a lot to do with supposing something to be true and then moving on with it as if it is truth even if it has not been confirmed by actual research.  This too is rampant within Calvinism.  For instance, Calvinism's Irresistible Grace doctrine is based on extreme presupposition. It presupposes that God's grace is irresistible to the elect and has no effect on those who are not the elect and it does so with no scripture that describes irresistible grace in any way, shape or form.  It is complete fabrication by supposition.

Chosen Ignorance
Chosen Ignorance is the practice of ignoring obvious scriptural passages that simply don't agree with one's predetermined doctrines. Calvinists ignore clear passages of scripture only because they oppose Calvinist doctrines.  This practice is astounding given the way Calvinists concoct doctrines with scriptural references that really don't support their thesis in the least bit.  Here are a couple of clear examples of this chosen ignorance:

This is good, and it is pleasing in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. I Timothy 2:4

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

Calvinists choose to ignore the obvious conclusions of these scriptures and many more like them simply because these verses openly and directly challenge their doctrines.  Yet they draw at straws to harness a scripture here or there to support their own questionable doctrines.

Circular Reasoning
Circular Reasoning is the methodology of believing something to be true and then advocating this conclusion strictly through the original understanding instead of doing a fair evaluation of the belief. For instance, for many years most people living on earth thought the earth was flat and not round. They reasoned the earth was flat and anything regarding this notion was interpreted only in light of what they already had predetermined in their minds.  Evolutionists have used Circular Reasoning since Darwin established the use of it in his challenges of creation.  Because they believe God does not exist, they reason that man must have evolved.  Calvinists often use this same technique when teaching or discussing Calvinism.

For instance, Calvinists often argue that a particular doctrine is true by assuming that another doctrine of Calvinism is true.  For example, because they believe in Unconditional Election then grace must be contrived as being irresistible even though there is not even a suggestion that grace is irresistible. Through Circular Reason a scriptural passage is assumed to have Calvinistic intention when in fact it does not.                                                                                                                        

Today, Calvinism is believed by many and has broad acceptance but it should not be given a pass because its doctrines and exegesis practices are patently unbiblical.  The problem is that most just accept these doctrines without truly checking the doctrines out and some come to believe them through systematic theology classes that simply indoctrinate folks to believe without doing true exegetical process.

I am certainly no great theologian by any stretch of the imagination but after forty-two years of fastidious Bible study as a born-again believer I know invalid Bible study approaches when I see them used.  The good glorious gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ deserves only valid exegesis.

I'll have more articles on the above errant exegetical techniques in future articles.

Darrell Brantingham

(Please check out my pithy tweets on my twitter account: @confrontcalvin)