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)

Reformed or Deformed?

Caution:  The information below will shock many.

Many people today choose to call themselves "Reformed" and they are proud of this distinction. Many denominations and churches call themselves "Reformed" and the word is even used in the name of some of these organizations like the Dutch Reformed Church for instance.  For most Christians we have been told over the years that the Reformation was a good thing so why shouldn't Christians, churches and denominations not proudly display their affinity for the Reformation?

The rhetoric today by those who lead today's "Reformed" movement would lead us all to believe that being "Reformed" is a great legacy and something to have pride in.  The reality and the facts surrounding the Reformation might shock you.  The Reformation was an unmitigated mess!  It was as much a deformation as it was a reformation.                                                                    

What made the Reformation so bad?  Why is it a bad legacy to be tied to?  The answers to these questions simply lie in the obvious facts.  History records the Reformation's shocking foundations. There were many reformers but three of them in particular founded the reformation as we know it today and two of the founders have people who actually use their names to identify their Christian affiliation (Lutherans, Calvinists).  The three men were who founded and contributed most to the Reformation were Martin Luther, Huldrych Zwingli and John Calvin.  In some circles these men are much revered because their treachery is simply ignored or not known.

As you read what follows please remember that Jesus said we would know "them" by their fruit:

“Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? Likewise, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them." Matthew 7:15-20 NIV

Martin Luther is known best for his nailing of the 95 theses on the door challenging the Roman Catholic Church.  For this I guess we all owe him some thanks.  I can grant him credit for doing what he did but not too much because I believe that someone else would have risen up and done the same thing but maybe in a much better way.  The problem with Martin Luther is that his actions after nailing his theses produced fruit that is unacceptable for any Christian let alone a leader of what some regard as the greatest move of God since the rise of the New Testament church.

Martin Luther's first intention was to effect change in the Roman Catholic Church and there certainly was no harm in this.  The Church was hemorrhaging with bad doctrines, beliefs and practices. When Luther's attempts to reform the Roman Catholic Church from within failed he attempted to reform the Church from the outside.  It was too bad that Luther did not simply found a movement that was a restoration to the New Testament church.  Restoration of the New Testament church would have meant bringing forth a new wineskin.  Instead Luther chose the "reformed" route which means that he kept much of what Catholicism was and rejected only some of its bad doctrines.  Some of these bad doctrines he used as building planks for his new "reformed" movement.

These false doctrines held by Luther have too often been glossed over and ignored. These false doctrines include the belief that one must be baptized to be saved and that infant baptism must be done for babies.  He also believed that the sacraments were part and parcel of salvation.  He stated:

"Namely, that the forgiveness of sins, life and salvation are given to us through these words in the sacrament.  Because, where sins are forgiven, there is life and salvation as well."

Even most Calvinists believe that Luther taught consubstanation which is the doctrine that says that the physical body of Christ is present ‘in, with, and under’ the bread of the Lord’s Supper. Luther believed and taught the veneration of Mary and even insisted that Mary was a virgin all her life.  He even believed in the "Immaculate Conception" heresy which states that Mary was born without any original sin and was saved from birth.  Luther also endorsed the Catholic Rosary.  Luther must be held accountable for believing and teaching these gross heresies.  

Clearly Luther rejected only some of Roman Catholicism's heresies and then founded the reformation on some of the others.  Is that Reformed or Deformed?  Luther attacked the Catholic Church for promoting a salvation by works but then he carried the same practice into the formation of the Reformation.  He taught salvation by faith but then believed that works like baptism and sacraments were mandatory for salvation.  Sadly, the Reformation was founded on Luther's "works" foundation.

Luther's faults don't end in his beliefs in bad doctrines and his desire to build the Reformation with these doctrines in tow.  No indeed, Luther stirred up his followers to exterminate the Anabaptists who simply believed in rebaptizing those who came to faith as adults. For ten long years Luther's  

followers tortured, imprisoned and killed thousands of Anabaptists. Bad fruit?  Yes.  Reformed or Deformed?

Now modern day "Reformed" folks simply ignore the facts I have stated above or defend Luther and his persecutions on the weakest of grounds.  For instance, they make statements about Luther's persecution of the Anabaptists that sound like this:  "This was the way that these kind of issues were handled during that time in history."  Really?  Murder, mayhem and persecution over baptism?  The Father of the Reformation did not know what the Bible says about murder and about being at peace with everyone?  Excusing Luther's actions borders on the ludicrous.  How can he be given credit as being a great theologian when he did not even understand Christ's commands to love and pray for his enemies?  Yet those that are saturated in today's "Reformed" movement defiantly defend the man.  Reformed or Deformed?

Jesus warned his disciples what the religious rulers of the day would do to them:

They will put you out of the synagogue; in fact, the time is coming when anyone who kills you will think they are offering a service to God. They will do such things because they have not known the Father or me.  John 16:2-3

How sad that the same accusation can be leveled at Luther, his followers and other reformers too because they too put other Christians to death thinking they were doing the will of God.

There is much more on Luther that could be stated here but I want to move to Huldrych Zwingli. Luther and Zwingli were co-initiators of the Reformation.  Like Luther, Zwingli believed in all the same false doctrines except he held a minor difference on the Lord's Supper.  Like Luther, he and his followers also persecuted the Anabaptists.  By the way, why did Luther and Zwingli persecute the Anabaptists?  The Anabaptist's "crime" was that they did not baptize their infants and they re-baptized adults when they came to faith in Christ.

Then Zwingli and his alliance applied a food blockade against some Catholics and he took up arms along with his "reformers" to do so.  He died on the battle ground with sword in hand prompting the "compassionate" Luther to say upon hearing of Zwingli's death:  "he got what he deserved...His death proved I was right and he was wrong." Reformed or Deformed?

John Calvin became the most famous of all the reformers and today many people associate their lot with him by referring to themselves as "Calvinists".  Calvin is considered a second-generation Reformer and it was he who set in to stone most of the "Reformed" doctrine held to today.  John Calvin was influenced some by Luther but even more by Augustine.  He developed the doctrines that we all call "Calvinism" these days which are even now revered and adopted by those who are Reformed.

Calvin also held to several heresies too.  Like Luther and Zwingli he believed in Infant Baptism for instance.  He also believed that the sacraments were equal to God's word. Calvin also believed in the heresy that Christ suffered in hell after his death on the cross despite the fact that Jesus said "It is finished" and there is no Biblical evidence for such a ridiculous doctrine.

Beyond his heresies, John Calvin also believed in mixing the kingdom of God with man's governmental institutions.  He and his top cronies seized control over the city of Geneva where Calvin became known infamously as the "Pope" of Geneva because of his despotic rule over the city. Like Augustine before him he instituted forced church attendance.  He also instituted multiple extremely legalistic laws over the people of Geneva and these included some of the most ridiculous laws ever concocted like how many dishes you could have or how high a woman could wear her hair. Here are a few examples of the penalties that came about:

• Three men who laughed during a sermon were imprisoned for three days.
• A child was whipped publicly for calling his mom a thief.
• A girl who struck her parents was beheaded.

There are many more crazy examples about the laws and regulations that Calvin and his cronies put on the good citizens of Geneva.  Calvin formed a "Nazi" like secret police who made sure that every home was compulsorily searched and examined.  Compulsory church attended was monitored by watchmen who made sure that people attended services at Calvin's approved churches.  From 1541 to 1546 Calvin's stooges executed 58 people and 76 people were exiled from the city. Who wants to be a Calvinist now? Can you smell the bad fruit?  Reformed or Deformed?

Those of the Calvinist "Reformed" persuasion have for years persecuted other believers. There are many documented examples but I will share only some of them here.  The Puritans were "Reformed" and they believed anyone who was not Anglican was a heretic.  They adopted their own faith as the only State approved religion in New England.  In 1650 the Quakers came to New England and were persecuted for insisting that they be allowed to pr   actice their faith.  The first Quakers had their

belongings seized and destroyed.  Others were beaten, whipped and imprisoned.  Many were expelled and literally sent back to England.  Some Quakers were even executed only because of their faith. Other Christian groups were persecuted harshly by the Reformed Puritans including the first Baptists that came to America. The Baptists were even charged with child abuse by the Puritans for refusing to baptize their infants.  Reformed or Deformed?

Historians tell us that the Dutch Reformed Church was a major contributor to the continuance of racist Apartheid in South Africa.  Some church groups over the years holding to Calvinism have been exclusive and have taught that only their church was accepted by God.  This includes Witness Lee's "Local Church" among others which held Calvinist beliefs and who eventually claimed that they were the only true church.  More bad fruit with roots firmly planted in the reformation.

In recent years some Reformed groups have hit the news cycle.  This includes the Westboro Baptist Church who protests the funerals of U. S. soldiers who have fallen in battle and they hold up signs saying "God hates fags".  Their website states that they are 5 point Calvinists.  A church in Texas with ties to Calvinist doctrine has also been in the news recently for their cult like activities.  The church of Wells of Wells, Texas restrained some of their people from seeing family members among other things that cults are prone to do.  Many Calvinists point out that these kinds of churches are Hyper-Calvinist not Calvinist.  That may be true but aren't all Hyper-Calvinists Calvinists first?  No one just becomes a Hyper-Calvinist.  Their entry point is being a Calvinist first.  This is the slippery slope traced all the way back to the Reformation.  It is clear that Calvinism leads to exclusivism and even persecutions of others solely on their theology.

Even among the newly coined "New Calvinists" there are problems.  Recently, the well-known Mars Hill Church which had been the third fastest growing large church in America closed its doors after its Superstar "New Calvinist" pastor, Mark Driscoll, was criticized for being arrogant and power mongering.  Driscoll admitted his theology came from Luther and Calvin.  Even self-proclaimed Calvinist Samuel James admits that Calvinism today has too many bullies.  Reformed or Deformed?

Finally we get to the "new" reformed doctrines that are so controversial today.  In addition to their involvement with persecutions and believing in heresies, our three heroes also developed "new" troubling doctrines.  Martin Luther believed that man did not have free will.  John Calvin was the most prevalent of the three, coming up with doctrines including Limited Atonement and My question to all is why would anyone anchor their theology on what these guys believed in and taught given the bad fruit they exhibited in their reprehensible actions and their belief in obvious heresy?  Reformed or Deformed?

Jesus said that we would know them by their fruit.  The fruit of the Reformed movement from the Reformation all the way to today is clear---it stinks.  This bad fruit and the theology that proceeds from it should be roundly rejected.  Today's Christian needs to heed our Lord's warning and judge the theology by the fruit of its founders.

Thanks be to God because he released to us the "Great Awakenings" beginning in the early 18th century and it started a restoration of New Testament theology in the church which has impacted the church in America in a very positive way.  Still Reformed theology and Calvinism live on today and has become stronger in recent years. Therefore we should not be deceived or unaware of the contemptible acts that took place in the Reformation and the legacy of corruption that sprung from it.  Neither should we keep silent about these things for all men deserve to know the truth.

So Reformed or Deformed?  Let the facts speak for themselves.

(Check out my many tweets on Twitter at #confrontcalvin).

Fifty Shades of Pink's Election

Unconditional Election is the central theme of Calvinism.  It is the belief that God predetermined every man's spiritual destiny before the world was created.  The doctrine states that God chose some to be saved while others he predestined to hell without any human participation in the matter.  

A. W. Pink is one of Calvinism’s best known authors and experts on Calvinism’s doctrines including Election.  In the first chapter of Pink’s book “Doctrine of Election” he writes about the doctrine of Election which many feel is the foundation for believing in Calvinism.                          

Pink’s take on the Doctrine of Election should be read with great interest as he admits that the Doctrine of Election has some very questionable aspects.

“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.”

Pink’s own take on the Calvinist doctrine of Election is very telling and remarkably chilling at the same time.  There are millions of Calvinists who believe a doctrine that has all the characteristics of another gospel.                                                                                                                                      
I will review Pink’s disturbing passage above from his book and it will be quite clear as to why

Pink's statements are so important to evaluate.

First, Pink admits that the doctrine is difficult to understand.  I certainly do not argue with his take on Unconditional Election because his confession is exactly what troubles me.  He is saying that it is not easily understood nor easily imparted.  True doctrines of scripture are not difficult or hard to understand.  True doctrine is easily imparted.  The Bible’s most precious and important doctrines are not difficult, not hard to understand and are easily imparted. Pink does us the favor of admitting that the doctrine is convoluted, misconstrued and lacking in actual substance.

Secondly, Pink admits that one needs to have a special teacher to teach the doctrine. One wonders what John and Peter would have thought since Acts records that they were unlearned and untrained men.  His statement is confirmation that this doctrine is remarkably shady in all respects.  If the only way to learn the doctrine is through a special teacher, it raises a clear red flag that the doctrine is questionable.  Imagine saying that one needs to have a special teacher to know the doctrine of the cross or regarding the resurrection for instance.  The fact is that the true doctrines in Holy Scripture are clearly stated and don’t require any “special teacher” except the Holy Spirit himself.

I have to agree with Pink that the only way anyone could ever come to believe this doctrine is by some kind of heavy indoctrination.  Reformed systematic indoctrination which is precisely what is happening today in Calvinistic churches.  Like the false doctrines of cults, indoctrination is the only way to get people to believe unscriptural doctrines.  You could give a million people the Bible and they would never concoct Calvinism's Election doctrine but teach them how to connect-the-dots and people will learn anything no matter how alien to scripture it is.

Thirdly, "great pains and diligence" is apparently what is required to figure this doctrine out.  I can heartily agree with Pink's confession on this too.  A doctrine this weak requires a great many pains to make it work even a little bit.  But I must ask, does one need to take great pains and diligence to know how powerful the blood of Christ is for us?  Of course not because Bilical understanding regarding the blood like all true foundational doctrines is clearly laid out in scripture.

Fourth, he mentions that one must “collect and tabulate their scattered statements on the subject” which is full proof that the passages of scripture used by Calvinism have to be knit together in some hodgepodge manner to build this doctrine.  He even uses the word “tabulate” to describe the methodology for coming up with this doctrine.  It is appalling that Pink uses a math term to illustrate how one understands   Calvinist Election.  This is not a term that speaks well of the doctrine's undeniable existence in scripture.  In other words, one must add up all the indoctrination in order to know it because apparently the doctrine is shrouded in some kind of dark cloud.  Why would God do that?                                

Imagine using the term “collect and tabulate” to describe how the doctrine of justification works for instance.  There is no need to collect and tabulate as one just needs to turn to Romans 5. Paul lays it out clearly and there is no need of collection and tabulation which is how a true Biblical doctrine should be identified in scripture.

Fifth, he states that it did not please “the Holy Spirit to give us one complete and orderly setting forth of the doctrine of election” to which I have a few significant responses.  This statement does not sound like the Holy Spirit to me since Jesus introduces us to Him as the one who reveals all truth to us. Therefore it begs the question as to why the Holy Spirit would hide a significant doctrine since he always clearly lays out every other legitimate doctrine in scripture.  Jesus portrayed the Holy Spirit as such:

When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth, for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come.  John 16:13

It is easy to conclude then that Calvinism’s doctrine of Election is not a Holy Spirit breathed doctrine at all for if the Spirit had been pleased, he surely would have given at least one complete and orderly teaching in scripture of the doctrine.

Sixth, he admits that the doctrine is put together “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.”  In other words, Pink admits here that the doctrine is extrapolated by pulling short snippets out of their original context in scripture.  “Here a little and there a little” is not a good foundation for a doctrine of the magnitude that Calvinism has made Election.  We all know false doctrines that are built with this kind of approach to theology.  The only passage he mentions is John 17 and this is laughable because this passage is clearly about God choosing some men to be his apostles and to preach the gospel but has nothing to do with the election of some men to be punished in hell.

Based on Pink's own take of  Election we should be very skeptical of this Calvinist doctrine of election.  Even Pink after his own many years of taking great pains to understand the doctrine admits that it has significant problems.  Calvinism's Election is a doctrine by the “connect-the-dots”

approach.  All cults have doctrines that meet the same criteria that Pink poses in his statement above. One would have hoped for more from a doctrine that is unfortunately believed by far too many and is the foundation for the five points of Calvinism.

Darrell Brantingham

(Check out my pithy comments on Calvinism on my Twitter account @confrontcalvin.)

Choosing To Believe Biblical Election

Choosing Calvinism’s doctrine of Election is what devoted Calvinists do and they do so without any clear passage of scripture that fully explains the doctrine they believe in. The Calvinist’s choice to believe Unconditional Election is really a mystery especially for those that teach such a notion.  How can someone who teaches others not see how absolutely void of scriptural foundation Unconditional Election is?  Even the revered Calvinist author, A. W. Pink wrote that Calvinist election is based on “scattered statements” and has to be built “a little here and a little there.”                             

The facts are these.  Election does exist in the Bible.  However, the key to understanding “Election” in the Bible is to understand that God makes different kinds of elections (choices) in scripture according to his purposes. There are at least four uses of "election" that I find in scripture and there could be more than four.  A scriptural example is included below for each kind of election that I see in scripture:

Our first usage of election is God's choice to send Jesus to the world that he might save the world:

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                         

Secondly, God has elected that all men have an opportunity to be saved and this is backed by many clear scriptures.  This is God’s second election.  Here are just two of many of these passages found in scripture:

1 Timothy 2:4-6
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.                                                                               

2 Peter 3:9
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.

Thirdly, God elects different people and even nations to fulfill his many purposes on earth.  These purposes include gifting, calling and ministry.  For instance, God chose an entire people group to become a nation to show forth his goodness and he called this nation “Israel”.

God also chose certain men to be his leaders and prophets in the Old Testament.  For example, God chose Jacob to be a father of Israel while not choosing Esau (Romans 9:13).  God chose Christ's disciples specifically to build his church upon (John 17).  God chose some to be apostles and others to have other kinds of specific ministry callings (1 Corinthians 12:29).  There are hundreds of scriptures that depicts God choosing folks for his purposes and most of these are conditional in nature.  An example of God choosing for a purpose is:        

“For you are a people holy to the LORD your God. The LORD your God has chosen you to be a people for his treasured possession, out of all the peoples who are on the face of the earth. 
Deuteronomy 7:6                                                                    

Fourth, God has elected that those who have been born-again will have access to participate in all the glorious promises of God.  Those who do not believe in Christ and his completed work will never have access to these promises.  God has chosen only those who believe to experience his marvelous promises.  These passages are usually the ones that Calvinists try to make about salvation but this is clearly erroneous.

The fact remains after all the rhetoric that there is not even one scripture where one finds that election is tied to language about salvation.  However, there many election passages which speak of God’s purposes for those who have been born again.

The passage below is often used by Calvinists as proof of election for salvation but this is simply faulty exegesis of the passage.  The passage below is written to those who are already saved and speaks of God’s election for those who are born again to apprehend God's awesome purposes for them:                                                                                                                                      

Ephesians 1:3-4
Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places, even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. (This passage is written to the “holy and faithful” and is about the purposes that God has for all those who are saved already.)

These four elections are what I see about election in scripture.  The various mentions of election are sprinkled about scripture according to the purpose of the passage.  One should never make take every use of the words "election" or "chosen" as having the same purpose because they clearly do not.  The context of the passage must be considered and this is Calvinism's greatest error because they do not take into account the actual context of the passage when exegeting scripture.

There is no justification for Calvinism’s Unconditional Election in scripture!
   

For as convincing as the above explanation of the uses of "election" in scripture, the greatest argument against Calvinism’s Election is the fact that there is not even one passage that states that God has chosen some for salvation and some to be damned---NOT ONE!   

Darrell Brantingham                        

(Check out my Twitter account @confrontcalvin)

Celebrate Christ's Completed Work!

We live in a day when the amount of information coming at us is an incredible overflow.  We are literally inundated with information coming at us from every direction including books, the internet, radio and TV.  It is truly information overload and this is just as true in the Christian community as it is in secular society. Unfortunately this leads us to distraction from what is really most important. What is most important?  Jesus and his completed work is the answer! 

Recently I tweeted that Christ's work of redemption at the cross and resurrection was the true gospel. A Calvinist responded: "That is pretty basic stuff." Apparently to him Christ's work was no big deal and nothing to get excited about.  We need to be careful that we do not become so lukewarm that we take for granted what Christ has done for us.                                                                          

Christ's completed work changed the world in a way that nothing has ever done and it has changed us too.  But if we are distracted by much lesser things then Christ's completed work becomes "ho-hum" and no big deal to us.  This is not good.  We need to remember Paul's admonition to the Corinthians:

But I am afraid that just as Eve was deceived by the serpent’s cunning, your minds may somehow be led astray from your sincere and pure devotion to Christ. 2 Corinthians 11:3 

Our pure devotion to Christ includes our understanding and devotion to his glorious completed work.

What is his completed work?

You can look at all Jesus did as his completed work from his incarnation, all the way through to him sitting down at the right hand of the Father immediately following his ascension.  You could also narrow it down to his work on the cross and resurrection too.  For the purposes of this article, I am going to focus on Christ's completed work accomplished from the cross through his reclining at the right hand of the father.

Christ's Work at the Cross                                                                                                

Christ's completed work at the cross is truly most amazing and deserves its own full attention.  Of course there have been volumes of sermons, articles and books written on Christ's work at the cross. I pray however that we do not ever take this work for granted in favor of a more "captivating" side doctrine or Bible truth.  Christ's work at the cross should never be taken lightly or forgotten.

What Christ did at the cross is truly amazing!  He made atonement for our sins and redeemed us.  He defeated sin and the devil:

"He himself bore our sins" in his body on the cross, so that we might die to sins and live for righteousness; "by his wounds you have been healed."  1 Peter 2:24

Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us, for it is written: “Cursed is everyone who is hung on a pole.” Galatians 3:13 

Therefore, since the children share in flesh and blood, He Himself likewise also partook of the same, that through death He might render powerless him who had the power of death, that is, the devil, Hebrews 2:14

When Jesus died, we died with him.  This is a most powerful dynamic that many Christians don't know, value or apply to their lives.

For we know that our old self was crucified with him so that the body ruled by sin might be done away with, that we should no longer be slaves to sin—because anyone who has died has been set free from sin. Romans 6:6-7

As you read the above passages, I pray that you are filled with awe and wonder instead of thinking that you have heard it so many times.  If you find yourself not impressed with these scriptures it could be that you have lost the greatness of Christ's completed work having been distracted by many other things in your life.

Christ also brought us close to God through the cross.                                                  

But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far away have been brought near by the blood of Christ.  Ephesians 2:13 

Through the cross we received atonement for our sins and the propitiation of our sins.  Propitiation is a huge word with an even bigger meaning. Propitiation means that God was appeased and satisfied so that the judgment of death was acquitted for us.  See the scripture below:

...we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous; and He Himself is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world. 1 John 1:1-2 

We could go on and on here and we have only touched the tip of the mountain in terms of what Christ did for us through his ordeal of being crucified.  Suffice it to say that Christ being crucified for us and its ramifications can never be overstated.                                                    

I never boast except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ through which the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world. Galatians 6:14             

When Jesus cried out "It is finished" at the cross he finalized his work at the cross and it was significant because he had paid a price that cost him everything and the punishment he took on in his battered body was only a microcosm of the horror of sin that he had taken on in his innocence.  He quite simply died due to the crushing weight of the sin of all mankind that was laid upon him.

God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God. 2 Corinthians 5:21

The Resurrection

Though it was finished on the cross, Christ's completed work or redemption for man was not yet done.  Christ would need to rise from the dead.  The cross and resurrection were the perfect "one - two" punch that man needed desperately.  In fact, the two worked together to give man victory over death.  Together they took care of our death problem which was man's primary consequence of the fall. The cross made us dead but the resurrection raised us up to new life and this life we now have is the life of the Son.

...just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life.  For if we have been united with him in a death like his, we will certainly also be united with him in a resurrection like his. Romans 6:4-5                      

And God raised us up with Christ and seated us with him in the heavenly realms in Christ Jesus, Ephesians 2:6

The cross took care of the old man (old nature) by putting him to death.  Our resurrection with Christ gave us new life and made us a new creation.  Jesus proved his resurrection by appearing to his disciples over a forty day period.  Like Christ's work at the cross, there is so much more to share on his resurrection.  But we proceed to the final point of Christ's work.

The Ascension

For some the ascension of Christ might seem a lesser subject than the cross and resurrection but the ascension should never be looked on apart from the cross and resurrection anyway.  It is clearly tied only to what Christ had already accomplished.  An ascension by Christ would have meant little to us had Christ not endured the cross and beat death at the resurrection.  The ascension of Christ is simply the progressive flow of the completed work and it is worthy of mention and remembrance.

There is something so glorifying of the Lord Jesus that is in the ascension for through it we see the triumph of God.  The ascension is the celebration of the victory at the cross and resurrection.  It is therefore worthy of mention because Christ gets the glory for his work of redemption for man.

Therefore it says, "WHEN HE ASCENDED ON HIGH, HE LED CAPTIVE A HOST OF CAPTIVES, AND HE GAVE GIFTS TO MEN." Ephesians 4:8

After the Lord Jesus had spoken to them, he was taken up into heaven and he sat at the right hand of God. Mark 16:19 

 After he had provided purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty in heaven. Hebrews 1:3                          

Jesus reclined at the Father's right hand having done all.  He had accomplished all that the Father had given him to do.  He had come born as an infant to be clothed in humanity.  He had ministered to those in need and he had taught his disciples in preparation for them to lead the church and preach the gospel.  He had endured the cross for the joy set before him.  He rose from the dead after three days and then ascended to God's right hand in victory and majesty, having done all.                    

What a time in heaven it must have been to witness Jesus taking his victorious seat at the right hand of the Father! How the angels and saints must have roared in thunderous worship and praise!  Jesus had accomplished the most important work that would ever be done in the history of the cosmos.  He had earned glory and honor and God would give him a name above every other name.              
Therefore God exalted him to the highest place and gave him the name that is above every name,  Philippians 2:9

So friend, get excited again about Jesus and his completed work for it is the great theme of scripture. His completed work makes us complete too!

Darrell Brantingham

(Read my pithy tweets on Twitter @confrontcalvin)

Calvinism: Another Gospel?

Calvinism has radically changed the traditional Biblical gospel to a gospel bearing a man’s name and a questionable man at that.  I’ll cover Calvin’s short comings in another article but for now I want to focus on what the differences are between the traditional Biblical gospel and that which Calvinism offers up.

I will briefly show what each gospel is about so that those who are new to Confronting Calvinism can get a foundation for the reason as to why one might want to confront Calvinism.

The Traditional Biblical Gospel

The traditional Biblical gospel is what the Bible truly teaches.  What is the Traditional Biblical Gospel?  It is that gospel which is so richly expressed throughout the New Testament.  It is not hidden in shadows or alluded to here or there.  It contains fully taught themes that are seen over and over again.  It is stark, clear and compelling.  No matter what it is called---it is the authentic gospel that comes vibrantly through reading the New Testament.                                        

The traditional gospel is that God sent his son to the world to save the world and whosoever believes in him will be saved:

John 3:16-18
16 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. 17 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. 18 Whoever believes in him is not is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because they have not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son.

First we see that God sent his son to save the world.  Secondly, we see that people must believe to receive the rescue that God sent in his son.  These two great themes are both expressed over and over in scripture.  Here are some additional clearly stated passages that supports what John 3:16-18 proclaims in regards to Jesus coming to save all men:

3 This is good, and pleases God our Savior, 4 who wants all people to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth. 5 For there is one God and one mediator between Godand mankind, the man Christ Jesus. 1 Timothy 2:3-5

14 For Christ’s love compels us, because we are convinced that one died for all, and therefore all died. 15 And he died for all, that those who live should no longer live for themselves but for him who died for them and was raised again. 2 Corinthians 5:13-15

9 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

There are many more of these passages in scripture.  The truth is that Christ died for all and saved all. So let’s return again to the second great theme of God’s plan for redemption and that is that men must believe in Jesus to be saved.  This is clearly stated in John 3:16-18 and it is stated over and over in New Testament scripture.  I can only share a few due to space.  Here is one of the clearest passages regarding the importance of believing:

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. 10 For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you profess your faith and are saved. 11 As Scripture says, “Anyone who believes in him will never be put to shame.”
Romans 9:10-11

12 For there is no difference between Jew and Gentile—the same Lord is Lord of all and richly blesses all who call on him, 13 for, “Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.  Acts 16:30-31                                                                                      

 40 For my Father’s will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day.”  John 6:40

 30 He then brought them out and asked, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?”  31 They replied, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved—you and your household.” Acts 16:30

For I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God that brings salvation to everyone who believes: first to the Jew, then to the Gentile. Romans 1:16

What a great Biblical witness we have in the above scriptures and there are so many more!  The true Traditional Biblical gospel is that God sent Jesus to die for all and that whoever believes in him will be saved.  This is a simple snapshot of the true classic Biblical gospel.

However Calvinism challenges both of these major themes of scripture.  These truths are so prominent in scripture it is a wonder how anyone could think of challenging them or adding additional criteria to what salvation is and how it is received.

The Calvinist Gospel                                                                                                

First, the Calvinist states that God did not come to offer salvation to all in spite of dozens of passages that clearly say that it is exactly what happened.

Secondly, the Calvinist states that man cannot believe on his own despite all the dozens of scriptures that clearly state that man must believe.  What is crazy is that the Calvinist only has conceptual arguments and not one clear passage of scripture that proves that man has lost the ability to believe. Ask a Calvinist to turn to one passage that specifically says that God did not come for all men and he cannot do it.  Request a Calvinist to turn to just one passage that clearly states that God believes for man and you will find that he cannot do it.

Calvinists often cherry-pick a verse out of context to try to prove one of their concepts but these are either loosely related, inconclusive or not related at all to the subject at hand.  Still Calvinists do often challenge the traditional Biblical gospel and choose to do so without even one clear Bible passage.

So what is the Calvinist’s gospel?  They use an acronym called the TULIP to describe it:        

“T” stands for Total Depravity.  The idea here is that man is so depraved that he does not have the ability to believe.  The problem is that the Calvinist does not even one clear passage that states this idea.  What they do is weave a bunch of other doctrines they have with a few cherry-picked verses to come up with their foggy conclusion.  But where is that one clear passage of scripture that says “T” clearly and decisively?  They don’t have one.

“U” stands for Unconditional Election.  This idea is that God elected only some to be saved and it is accomplished without any condition.  Again, there is not one clear passage that states this. Not one!  Calvinists use a handful of passages to support the doctrine but none are clear and in each case the central theme of the passage is not about Unconditional Election for salvation. 

“L” is for Limited Atonement.  This disturbing doctrine is a kind of summary doctrine for Calvinists.  It states that Christ only died for the elect and not for all men.  Once again, there is not one clear statement in all of scripture that says anything like “Christ dies only for the elect.”  This doctrine like the others is based on sheer conjecture.

“I” is for Irresistible Grace.  This states that if one is elected by God to be saved, there is nothing that person can do to resist that grace and those that are not the elect don’t have any access to this grace.  Once again, the erroneous exegesis that the doctrines above have are continued for Irresistible Grace.  There is not one passage that clearly states this idea.  Grace is what it is and certainly not one scripture uses this phrase or even states it.  It is sheer theological fantasy.

“P” is for Perseverance of the Saints.  This is not really about how someone believes but has to do with how those once saved cannot fall away.  I am not going to address this here as this really is an issue dealing with those whom are already saved but I do not believe this Calvinist doctrine either.

What you can see in this article is that there is a clear traditional New Testament gospel that leads to salvation and it is clearly backed by copious amounts of scripture while the tenets of the Calvinism gospel are not justified by even one clearly stated proof passage.                   

The above is only a brief overview and I will have much more to write on all the above as time goes on.  I have only scratched the surface as it applies to TULIP.  It is important to know what Calvinism is so one can understand it and even help others that might be confused.

That which is clearly stated in scripture and often mentioned is a true theme of scripture.  That which cannot be clearly stated but is justified only by weaving a verse here and there pulled out of context with other doctrines cannot be accepted as a Biblical theme. This is the problem with Calvinism’s gospel.  I will have much more on this in future articles.                                                

Believe then in the true traditional Biblical doctrine found securely in scripture and recognize Calvinism for what it just might be: another gospel.                                        

Darrell Brantingham

(Check out my pithy tweets @confrontcalvin)