Confronting Calvinism's Romans 9 - Part 1 - It Is About Israel

Calvinists revere and hold to Romans 9 as their greatest proof text in all of the Bible.  If you get into a discussion with a Calvinist they will usually start their support of Calvinism with Romans 9.  By their own admission Romans 9 is the best that they have.  For me the idea that Romans 9 proves Calvinism is laugh-out-loud delusional because its message has nothing at all to do with personal salvation or redemption let alone unconditional election.

The problem is that Calvimists partake of Romans 9 much like a kid eats an Oreo cookie. The Oreo cookie has two hard chocolate outside pieces but in the middle there is the sweet white icing.  For kids the two outside chocolate ends are a little boring so they go right for their favorite part which is the sweet white icing in the middle.  Many kids simply twist off one of the chocolate ends and then scrape the icing off with their teeth and then leave the chocolate ends sitting on the table.

Calvinists approach Romans 9 the same way.  They ignore the top and bottom portions of Romans 9 like a kid does the chocolate outsides of an Oreo cookie and they go right towards their sweet icing of verses in the middle of Romans 9.  This approach works great with cookies but is huge error when it comes to exegeting a passage in scripture. The verses that begin and end Romans 9 are critical to the accurate exegesis of the middle verses as are the first few verses of Romans 10.

The purpose of my two part blog series on Romans 9 is to refute what Calvinism teaches about Romans 9 because it is simply exegetical malfeasance and if one knows how to study scripture then this abuse of Romans 9 cannot and must not be believed.  In this article (Part 1), I will deal with the context of Romans 9.  In Part 2 I will confront Calvinism's sweet white icing in the middle of the passage and show a multitude of errors that Calvinists use to make Romans 9 their greatest proof text. Also in Part 2, I will show why the middle verses of Romans 9 prove nothing about Calvinism or their pet doctrine "unconditional election".  I'll tear the middle verses apart verse by verse so that it will be clearly seen what these verses are saying and it will be in full context of Romans 9.  Brace yourself now because I am about to share a plethora of scriptures.

The full context of Romans 9 is clearly about Israel and the Gentiles. What then is the middle of Romans 9 about?  The answer is: Israel and the Gentiles.  One cannot simply pull scriptures willy-nilly from the middle of context and then build a major doctrine with it. This is irresponsible exegesis and yet this is what Calvinism does with Romans 9.  I now go through Romans 9, verse for verse:

1 I say the truth in Christ, I lie not, my conscience also bearing me witness in the Holy Ghost,
2 That I have great heaviness and continual sorrow in my heart.
3 For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh:
4 Who are Israelites; to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises;
5 Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen. 

In verses 1 through 5 Paul does two things.  First he lays out all that was given to the people of Israel by God.  Everything had been given to them including the adoption to sonship and the divine glory.  Secondly Paul lays out his heart for his Jewish brothers. Paul goes so far to say that he wished he would be accursed in order that all his kinsmen from Israel's heritage would know Christ and not be lost.  Does this sound like Paul believed in unconditional election?  If so, he was disagreeing out loud with God for not choosing all of Israel. Instead Paul is lamenting the fate of Israel which had been God's elect nation but was now falling short due to their unbelief. Make no mistake. Romans 9 starts out with nothing outside of the plight of Israel.  Moving on:

6 Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel:
7 Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called.
8 That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.
9 For this is the word of promise, At this time will I come, and Sarah shall have a son.
10 And not only this; but when Rebecca also had conceived by one, even by our father Isaac;
11 (For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth;)

In verses 6 through 11 Paul continues with his concern over Israel and he tells the story of God's promise and Abraham's seed.  Once again, Roman 9 from verses 1 through 11 is about Israel.    

12 It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger.

13 As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.

14 What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid.

15 For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.

16 So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.

Is it any surprise that verses 12 through 16 continue with the theme of Israel and is about the key players in Israel's history and lineage?  NOTE: We have just hit the part that Calvinists like to use but please see that these verses are simply the continuation of Paul's comments on ISRAEL.

I will fully debunk the verses above in Part 2 of my two part series but for now please note that these verses are about Israel.

17 For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth.

18 Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.

19 Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will?

20 Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?

21 Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?

22 What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:

23 And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory,

24 Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?

Paul still has not changed his subject.  These verses are still about Israel and also now mentions Gentiles too.  He speaks about Pharoah and God's mercy.  Verses 23 and 24 are about God offering salvation to the Gentiles and not about people in general.  We'll dissect the verses above in great detail in Part 2 and show the errors of Calvinism.

Anybody who can take what Paul wrote above and twist it to make it about God having some kind of strange unconditional election is truly pursuing a most desperate agenda.

Note:  This ends the white sweet icing part that Calvinist's emphasize.  Now we are on to the part that they ignore again.  Hello chocolate end!

25 As he saith also in Osee, I will call them my people, which were not my people; and her beloved, which was not beloved.

26 And it shall come to pass, that in the place where it was said unto them, Ye are not my people; there shall they be called the children of the living God.

27 Esaias also crieth concerning Israel, Though the number of the children of Israel be as the sand of the sea, a remnant shall be saved:

28 For he will finish the work, and cut it short in righteousness: because a short work will the Lord make upon the earth.

29 And as Esaias said before, Except the Lord of Sabaoth had left us a seed, we had been as Sodoma, and been made like unto Gomorrha.

No surprise here but the preceding verses are all about Israel again.  All of Romans 9 is on the same subject.  Verse 25 shows that God changes his elect out.  Israel was once his chosen people but now they which were beloved become the not beloved. Verse 27 truly proves Calvinism "unconditional election" as false. Remember Israel was God's elect all through the Old Testament yet only some of them are saved verse 27.  So only some of God's elect are saved?  This verse and the above passage proves Calvinism is a farce.

30 What shall we say then? That the Gentiles, which followed not after righteousness, have attained to righteousness, even the righteousness which is of faith.

31 But Israel, which followed after the law of righteousness, hath not attained to the law of righteousness.

32 Wherefore? Because they sought it not by faith, but as it were by the works of the law. For they stumbled at that stumblingstone;      

33 As it is written, Behold, I lay in Sion a stumblingstone and rock of offence: and whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.

Okay already---broken record!  The final passage is about Israel too.  Who would have guessed?  In verse 30 Paul shows how the Gentiles who were not following after righteousness now can openly come to God's righteousness by faith.  Then verse 31 shows that Israel fell short of what it was called to.  Why?  Verse 32 spells it out.  Israel was rejected by God because they stumbled over the stumblingstone which required faith.  Verses 30, 32 and 33 all make it clear that Israel was rejected by God because they did not come to faith.  These final verses prove that Romans 9 is about Israel and their rejection of him because of faith.  Calvinists never quote these last verses.  Why?  Because they clearly show the importance of man believing.  It is faith which completes a man's election and this is Paul's wonderful message here.  Calvinists believe that man gets faith after he gets saved but Romans 9 makes mincemeat out of this wayward doctrine.

Hebrews 3:16-19 proves the exegesis above:

16 Now who were they who heard and yet were rebellious? Was it not all those who left Egypt under the leadership of Moses? 17 But with whom was he angry forty years? Was it not those who sinned, whose bodies fell in the wilderness? 18 And to whom did he swear that they would not enter his rest, if not to those who were disobedient? 19 So we see that they were unable to enter because of unbelief.

Not Done: Romans 10 Must Be Reviewed Too!

But we are not done because we also must consider the first few verses of Romans 10 which continue Paul's thoughts on Israel which he started in Romans 9.  Remember Paul wrote Romans as a letter and did not include chapter and verse.  Romans 10 adds to Romans 9:

1 Brethren, my heart's desire and prayer to God for Israel is, that they might be saved.

2 For I bear them record that they have a zeal of God, but not according to knowledge.

3 For they being ignorant of God's righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God.

4 For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one  

that believeth.

5 For Moses describeth the righteousness which is of the law, That the man which doeth those things shall live by them.

6 But the righteousness which is of faith speaketh on this wise, Say not in thine heart, Who shall ascend into heaven? (that is, to bring Christ down from above:)

7 Or, Who shall descend into the deep? (that is, to bring up Christ again from the dead.)

In the verses above Paul wraps up his comments on Israel but he makes sure that he mentions once again the need for believing in verse 4 and for having faith in verse 6.

Then Paul proclaims clearly how people are saved in the following verses:

8 But what saith it? The word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and in thy heart: that is, the word of faith, which we preach; 

9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. 

10 For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. 

11 For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed. 

12 For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him. 

13 For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. 

14 How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher? 

15 And how shall they preach, except they be sent? as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things!

In the above, Paul changes gears having finished his teaching on Israel and the Gentiles.  He segues into the truth about how people are saved.  Verses 9, 10, and 11 are about personal salvation and applies to all men.  Paul does not mention election let alone unconditional election.  In fact, Paul uses the word "whosoever" two times in verses 11 and 13 which indicates that salvation is now available to all men.  He speaks about men calling on God and this is how they are saved in verse 13.  Finally, in beautiful fashion Paul lays out the need for the preaching of the gospel in both verse 9 and verse 15.

In concluding Part 1, it should be abundantly clear that Romans 9 proves nothing for Calvinism or their pet doctrine of unconditional election.  Romans 9 is about God's dealings with Israel and the Gentiles.  It is about Israel not moving in faith and Paul makes it clear in both Romans 9 and 10 that one must have faith to be saved.

Romans 9 is not an Oreo cookie at all. It has the same substance from top to bottom. What Calvinsm has done is make Romans 9 into something that it isn't.   Romans 9 is a cookie of one

substance if we continue the metaphor.  There is no sweet white icing in the middle.  From start to finish, Romans 9 is about Israel and its rejection of God's promises by not embracing them in faith. It is about God removing his favor upon Israel and moving that favor to the Gentiles. Romans 9 is Calvinism's best proof text and it falls woefully short in proving any of Calvinism's wayward doctrines.  No one should be deceived by the Calvinist error of pulling scripture out of context and then attempting to make it about something that it isn't.

Please look for Part 2  which I will publish shortly.  In Part 2 I will put great emphasis on explaining why the middle verses of Romans 9 that Calvinists use do not support unconditional election or Calvinism in any way.

Darrell Brantingham

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

My Response To Recent Slander

It is no surprise to anyone that I have tremendous problems with Calvinism doctrine which I believe is for the most part, false doctrine.  But what shocks me just as much as Calvinism itself is the tactic by Calvinists who do not agree with me especially on Twitter. Though none of my tweets are directed at these individuals, these folks sometimes post slander and lies about me and this happens to others as well.  I guess it is okay with these guys to slander someone directly if you do not agree with them even if your charge is fully false and slanderous in nature.

Such is the work of Colin Maxwell (@weecalvin who recently slandered me on Twitter and a blog that he operates.  Here is what he recently posted on his website:

and on his Twitter:

The above is an out-and-out lie and truly slanderous.  I am not a Universalist.  For those who don't know the term, Universalists believe that all men will eventually be redeemed and that hell is either not eternal or literal.  I do NOT believe in Universalism.  To set the record straight, I believe that the Bible is clear that if a person does not believe in Jesus and rejects Christ's free gift of salvation that he is going to hell for eternity and it is a literal hell where that person will suffer immensely.  Does that sound like Universalism to you?

My point in my tweet replete with its 140 character limitation is that some Calvinists state rather disingenuously that God offers salvation to all but in the end God only saves some who are the "elect'.  By the way, that is what Calvinists have clearly written and my response is to their comments.  I have read this kind of statement many times from some Calvinists.  It is actually the lighter Calvinist opinion on the subject because some Calvinists state that God only offers salvation to only a few.  

Either way, Mr. Maxwell's charge that I am a Universalist is completely false and I hope that he will apologize for it.  This kind of rancor that is simply a personal attack where people's names are slandered is wrong.  I post a lot of information that is negative to Calvinism but I do not troll for other people's posts and then challenge them.  Neither do I make lying and slanderous statements to those on Twitter or anywhere else for that matter.  I don't even mind the many times that Calvinists on Twitter have named me by name in their tweets as one that they disagree with in terms of my tweets but when someone boldly lies and slanders a person then the line has been crossed.  

I forgive Mr. Maxwell but I think this tactic of slandering someone because you don't like the argument is a lowly one and should be called out as such.  He is not the only Calvinist to call me a Universalist for simply stating that Jesus died for all men.  Strangely enough, one Calvinist even called me a Universalist simply for tweeting 1 Timothy 2:3-4 with no additional comments.  That is crazy!

I know that all Calvinists do not lie and slander but there are some who do.  Those that do should be ashamed of these tactics.  Neither do I condone the actions of those who oppose Calvinism that may choose to do the same.  

My posts are not directed towards hardcore believers in Calvinism.  My chances of changing their minds are very slim.  The goal of my tweets and blog posts is to do the following:

1. Support others like me who are exposing Calvinism.

2. Provide an alternative message to those who lean towards Calvinism but who have not heard an alternative message.

3. Inform folks who are simply trying to find out the truth about Calvinism.

4. Warn those who have not heard of Calvinism so that they will know what it is when they hear it.

My goal is not to antagonize those who are hard and fast Calvinist believers. I purposely do all I can to not follow these kinds of Calvinists on Twitter especially since I have no interest in getting involved in worthless arguments.  I even block these kinds of folks on Twitter so that they don't have to even see my tweets and posts.  In other words, I don't have ANY interest in arguing with those who already believe Calvinism is what they think it is.

Thanks for reading this post on my thoughts on this so that people can know not only that I am not a Universalist but also so folks can know my heart and my intentions.  The fact is I have good friends that are Calvinists and I love all men including Calvinists. Colin is probably a great guy and I respect his passion for what he believes in.  I would probably enjoy speaking with him but enough of the slander, please...

Darrell Brantingham

(Check out my pithy tweets @confrontcalvin on Twitter)

Calvinism's Incoherent Hypersensitivity Part II - Who Get's Credit?

Hypersensitivity is being overly sensitive about an issue.  It is being irrational and even incoherent over a topic.  That is exactly what Calvinism does on some issues that are vigorously tied to their doctrines.  Part 1 was about Calvinism's strange view regarding the Sovereignty of God and Part II has to do with God getting all the credit and man getting none.

#2: God Getting All The Credit and Man Getting None

Calvinists are ultra-hyper about man getting any credit at all when it comes to salvation. That man would receive credit for anything really bothers Calvinists.  Their strange idea that if man believes God he earns credit for his salvation seems to come out of nowhere. Calvinists maintain that if men are able to believe on their own then they have something to do with their own salvation.

The traditional Biblical view is that man does believe unto salvation but this does not give man any credit whatsoever.  Calvinists vehemently insist that man can get no credit whatsoever for salvation and if man could believe on his own, then man could boast that he had something to do with his salvation.

This is faulty thinking on many levels.  First, where does this concern come from because it is clearly not a stated issue in scripture?  I cannot think of a verse that addresses this except that man should boast only in the cross.  Apparently it is not a problem for God because scripture shows no sensitivity to it.  God is not in heaven fretting that he gets 100% of the credit.  God is simply not a narcissist but you might not know that if you believe in Calvinism.

I have been told by Calvinists that even if man's involvement is just .0001%, it is too much and that God just can't have that!  I find this ludicrous on many accounts.  First, what if God wanted man to get a little credit?  I am not saying that God does want man to have credit but what if he did? Apparently Calvinists don't believe that God can do what he desires if it disagrees with their premises.

The other problem is the whole notion that man can get credit for believing in God in the first place. I don't understand the Calvinist reasoning that man's believing in Christ would give him credit.  The whole idea that this is a problem is ridiculous and is simply foreign to scripture.      

Who Get's It?

Scripture does not state that man gets credit for believing in Christ and his completed work of salvation.  Nor does it state that if man could believe on his own, then he could take credit for his salvation.  Why should he? How anyone can conjure up the idea that man believing in God would somehow make him worthy of praise is silly.  The Bible does not assert this idea at all.  The source of this sensitivity is simply what I refer to as "reformed philosophy" springing from the Reformation's fathers, Martin Luther and John Calvin.

But even as philosophy, it is remarkably incoherent.  Does anyone who believes in anything get credit for earning something simply by believing?  Imagine a fan taking credit because he believed his team won the super bowl after they won it.  Would that fan get any kind of credit because he believed his favorite team won the Super Bowl? Would he be able to boast he won the game by believing his team had won?  Of course not. What a ridiculous notion!  The actual players on the team that won would get all the credit.

Or consider a man being notified that he has inherited a fortune from a rich uncle.  Does his act of going to the bank to sign some papers to receive the fortune allow him to boast that he earned it?  Of course not!  He did nothing to earn it and no person observing his windfall would give him praise for simply receiving what was now his by no effort of his own. Receiving the inheritance doesn't allow him to boast in anything.  What does believing in anything have to do with getting praise for believing in the thing in the first place?
                                                                                                                                     

The only thing man does is receive the gift of salvation and eternal life.
Does receiving a gift that was fully earned mean that one gets praise for it? No.

Consider a man who takes a trip in his boat into the ocean and falls overboard.  Then a fellow boater comes along and throws him a line that will save him and the man grabs it.  Does grabbing the life-saving device allow the man to brag he saved himself? Certainly not!  The man who threw the life-saving device gets all the credit because he did the work of saving.  Would anyone ever give credit to the guy who fell in?  Of course not.  Yet, this is what Calvinism often teaches about man believing in God.                            

The Bible does not ever convey the idea that having faith brings undue credit to the one who displayed faith.  The fact is that Jesus acknowledged faith when he saw it and he was always pleased with it. The fact is that  Hebrews 11 commends many for doing things by faith.  While the Bible shows no apprehension about man getting credit for believing, it does communicate that it pleases God when men do believe.  If God is pleased by man believing, why would anyone worry if it is a work or not?

It should be noted that there is a difference between work unto salvation and salvation by works. This is a major distinction that causes Calvinists much confusion.   Jesus actually told the crowd in John 6 to work for salvation by believing:

Jesus answered, “Very truly I tell you, you are looking for me, not because you saw the signs I performed but because you ate the loaves and had your fill. Do not work for food that spoils, but for food that endures to eternal life, which the Son of Man will give you.  John 6:26-27

However Romans 4:1-3 compares Abraham's faith with obtaining salvation by the performing works of the law:

What then shall we say that Abraham, our forefather according to the flesh, discovered in this matter? If, in fact, Abraham was justified by works, he had something to boast about—but not before God. What does Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness.”

The passage above clearly states that Abraham's believing was not considered works because it contrasts being justified by the works of the law with believing.  Believing God is not considered "works".  Abraham did not get credit for believing but his believing God was credited to him as righteousness.

It is troublesome that Calvinism's hyper-sensitivity regarding man getting any credit actually seems to equate Christ's work at the cross with the simple God-given call to believe in Jesus?  They diminish Christ's work at the cross by insisting that man's believing is somehow equal to Christ's work.

If one really believed that Jesus completed the work of salvation then what could man ever do to get credit if it is already done.  Did Jesus complete his finished work of salvation for man?  Yes.  Then how could man ever add to that work?  He can't!  To say that man can do something to add to  

Only He Could Do This Work!

Christ's completed work is a horrendous notion and is straight from hell.              

Jesus did the work and our only part is believing. Does believing substantiate any equality with Christ's completed work?  NO!  To equate man having faith in Jesus with Christ's completed work is actually a work of cheapening Christ's completed work and yet Calvinism infers this very idea.  Believing is a RESPONSE, not a work.

How could anyone say that receiving the gift of salvation is equal to Christ taking on our sin and punishment? Who can say that faith in Christ is equal of Christ rising from the grave?  They can't!  I get a bit offended when I hear the way Calvinists demean Christ's completed work by saying that if man can believe on his own, he gets some kind of credit for his salvation simply by his believing. This is a ludicrous accusation with no merit in either reason or scripture.

Lastly, what intrigues me most about this issue is the absolute hypocrisy of this hypersensitivity by Calvinists.  While men do believe, I have never heard anyone in any setting boast that they should get credit, praise or validation by simply believing in God. In forty plus years of walking as a Christian I have never heard anyone actually bragging that they believed in God.  The fact is that God wants us to confess with our mouth what God did and that we do believe in his offer of salvation.  This pleases God and gives him glory!

The Calvinist hypocrisy is that Calvinists openly brag and boast that they are "chosen" by God.  It goes something like this:

"I am so blessed because God chose me to be saved." or "I am so happy that I was chosen by God."

In fact, the only kind of boasting I ever hear is this kind of boasting.
I have heard Calvinists boasting profusely in their so-called election to salvation.  One Calvinist tweeted to me that he "was God's favorite" because he was "chosen".  Talk about boasting! The Bible does caution us against boasting in anything but the cross. The only boasting I ever hear comes from Calvinists bragging about how they are the "chosen" ones.

There is no reason for Calvinists to be so hyper about the things I described above except that they may do so out of desperation to give their doctrines some kind of traction.  We should all be concerned about hyper Calvinism and its extreme claims. Let's not be afraid to expose it!

Darrell Brantingham

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

Calvinism's Incoherent Hypersensitivity Part 1 - Sovereignty of God

Hypersensitivity is being overly sensitive about an issue that is simply unwarranted.  It is being irrational and even incoherent over one or more facets of a topic.  That is exactly what Calvinism does on some issues that are vigorously tied to their doctrines.  These hypersensitivities drive their doctrines.  There are two hypersensitivity issues that seem to stand above the others and this article discusses the first one.  The second issue will be discussed in a separate blog post.

#1: The Sovereignty of God

Calvinists are so hypersensitive over the "Sovereignty of God" that they have actually redefined the words "sovereign" or "sovereignty" to mean something not found in a dictionary or revealed in scripture.

Calvinist hypersensitivity starts with the idea that God is absolutely sovereign and fully in control. Most Christians believe that God is sovereign and completely in control.  The problem is that Calvinists go well beyond this understanding of sovereignty and this is the subject of this article.

At first look, this does not seem like it should be a problem but if you study Calvinism you find that Calvinists construct doctrines that actually are built first and foremost on the foundation of their understanding of God's sovereignty.  This they do above and beyond all other truths found in scripture.

These questions arise:

1. Why is Calvinism so hypersensitive regarding the sovereignty of God?
2. Why don't Calvinists consider God's love, justice or mercy as foundational as they do his sovereignty?
3. Why is sovereignty held up as more important than any of God's other attributes by Calvinists?

Traditional Christianity has focused more on God's love as the core foundation of God's character and that it is his love that carries his will forward.  By contrast, Calvinists promote God's sovereignty as the overall key aspect in understanding God's character and will.

Considering Calvinism's stance then questions should be asked:
1. Does the Bible portray God as being fixated on his sovereignty?
2.  Does scripture show God to be some kind of narcissist sitting in heaven fretting over the idea that he might not be seen as being sovereign enough?
3. Does God control every aspect for every person including their thoughts?

Fortunately, these questions are easily answered.  While scripture does make it clear that God is sovereign over all things, it does not communicate sovereignty as being greater than God's love, mercy, truth and justice.  This is the case throughout scripture. God's sovereignty is never given priority over his other glorious attributes.

While there are a few mentions of God's sovereignty in the Old Testament, the New Testament rarely mentions the subject.  In fact, the word "sovereign" is mentioned just five times in the entire New Testament and the word "sovereignty" is not used at all.  In comparison, how often does the New Testament mention God's love?  The word "love" is used 261 times in the New Testament and it is usually used in the context of God's love.  "Love" therefore is the emphasis in scripture while sovereignty is acknowledged but never exalted above God's other attributes including love.

The Bible as a whole contains no agenda for God's sovereignty as does Calvinism. Though it is recognized, it is not emphasized like Calvinism insists that it should be. This brings us to the next very important issue that seems so central within Calvinism. That issue is Calvinism's fixation on the concern that man must recognize God's sovereignty as greater than anything else.  Scripture does not establish this sentiment at all.  Instead we find God eschewing his sovereignty so that men may know his humility.  Paul makes it clear:

In your relationships with one another, have the same mindset as Christ Jesus: 

Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage; rather, he made himself nothing by taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness. 

And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to death—even death on a cross! Philippians 2:5-8

Jesus stated regarding himself:

Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. Matthew 11:29 

Scripture convinces us that Jesus was more concerned with revealing his humility then being concerned about making sure everyone knew how sovereign he was.

Calvinists proclaim a theology that starts and ends with God being sovereign.  They demand that God's sovereignty be given priority over every other spiritual truth.  It is like they think God is paranoid that man won't think he is sovereign.  I don't think God is sitting in heaven worrying that everyone on earth knows how sovereign he is.  God is not afraid of man's frailties or weaknesses nor is he disturbed that man under values his sovereignty.  It is strange that Calvinism presents God as a kind of narcissist that fears his sovereignty is not preeminent.

This kind of Calvinist philosophy is difficult to substantiate from scripture and it gets worse. Calvinists take their concerns one step further by redefining what 'sovereignty" really means. Reformed theology makes "sovereignty" mean that God has predetermined everything beforehand and this includes everything that happens in the world.  They state that everything that is done is only done by God's good will and pleasure and there is nothing that happens that God did not predestine.

Calvinists claim that everything is pre-fixed and that man does not have free-will to do anything on his own.  In doing so, Calvinists simply make God a master manipulator or micro-manager of everything that has happened or will happen in the future.

Noted Reformed Author Edwin Palmer, a leader in Calvinism stated it this way:

“All things that happen in all the world at any time and in all history—whether inorganic matter, vegetation, animal, man or angels (both good and evil ones-- come to pass because God ordained them, Even sin- the fall of the devil from 

heaven, the fall of Adam, and every evil thought, word, and deed in all of history.” (The Five Points of Calvinism, 1999)

And

R.C. Sproul Jr. wrote:  “…God desired for man to fall into sin…God created sin.” (Almighty Over All)

However, this definition of "sovereignty" is not what the word means at all and is simply not found in scripture either. Instead, study of scripture clearly shows that God constantly offers choices to men and God holds man accountable for his actions.  How would God hold man accountable if God predetermined every action of man?  This is not coherent thinking and really bad theology.

Why Calvinists are so hyper about God's sovereignty is not something I claim to understand but my suspicion is that their understanding of "sovereignty" is needed to establish their Reformed doctrines. Calvinism needs God to be a micro-meddler for their doctrines to stand.  Only if God has predetermined all things can the Calvinist doctrines of Unconditional Election and Irresistible Grace be considered legitimate.  If these doctrines are revealed as illegitimate, then the whole of Calvinism collapses like a deck of cards.

Clearly the sovereignty of God should not be overly emphasized and held up above every other word or teaching in scripture.  God is not concerned or paranoid about his sovereignty and his sovereignty is clean and pure.  God is not the "Predeterminator in Chief".  God's sovereignty simply means he has the ultimate say in all things even if in his sovereignty he determines that man has free-will.

I believe that God is sovereign and can do anything he wants at any time, at any place and to any entity but I don't believe he has predetermined all things including evil.  He has predestined that some things happen but there are things that happen on this earth that God has no pleasure in and would never predetermine.

In fact, Genesis records God's thoughts in Genesis 6:5-7:

The Lord saw how great the wickedness of the human race had become on the earth, and that every inclination of the thoughts of the human heart was only evil all the time. The Lord regretted that he had made human beings on the earth, and his heart was deeply troubled. So the Lord said, “I will wipe from the face of the earth the human race I have created—and with them the animals, the birds and the creatures that move along the ground—for I regret that I have made them.”

This passage proves that God does not predetermine all things.  The fact that God has the ability to regret shows that man can do things that actually hurts God.

I am repulsed by Calvinism's theory that God has desired to predetermine man and the devil's sin and rebellion.  I find it abhorrent that Calvinism implies that God could predetermine rape, murder, betrayal and torture.  I find it inconceivable that God would predetermine that Hitler murder six million Jews.  I find it repugnant that God would predetermine that Stalin murder 23 million people civilians above and beyond the 20 million Soviets that perished in World War II.  I find it appalling that God could have predetermined that Mao kill more than 49 million people.

Who could tell a weeping mother that the rape, torture and murder of her 8 year old daughter was predetermined by God?  Only a Reformed Calvinist could.

Some Calvinists teach that God creates evil and they have only one passage to hinge their statement on. Let's examine that passage:

I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things.  Isaiah 45:7 KJV

First, no one should ever build a doctrine from a single verse especially pulled out of context. Secondly, the word "evil" is only seen in the KJV.  No other version translates the Hebrew word in this way and with good reason.  In fact, the Hebrew word means:

“adversity, affliction, calamity, distress, misery.” 

Everyone agrees that God sends all of the above in certain situations to fulfill his purposes.  But the word has nothing to do with moral evil yet Calvinists use this verse to promote the idea that God created moral and spiritual evil.  He did not.  Proverbs 8:13 and Psalm 97:10 state that man should hate evil.  Would God ask us to hate evil if he did not?  There are many verses that state that God hates sin so how could he create sin since sin is evil?  Consider:

For thou art not a God that hath pleasure in wickedness: neither shall evil dwell with thee.  Psalm 5:4 KJV

God does not predetermine evil.  He does not predetermine that genocide and human torture take place.  When God judged nations in the Old Testament, he was not sending evil but was delivering justice.  Scripture contains no substantiation for God predetermining evil. All evil has its originations in Satan and the fall of man.

The Bible conveys that idea that God proves his sovereignty by allowing man to make choices and manage certain aspects in their lives.  God does not predetermine all things; instead he intervenes whenever and however he chooses.  This is true sovereignty. That is why we pray because God intervenes by his sovereignty.  Why would anyone pray if all things are predetermined?

Calivnism's hypersensitivity regarding the sovereignty of God then is unwarranted and is simply not a scriptural understanding of God's true sovereignty.

Darrell Brantingham

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

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)