Reformed Faith Is Not Biblical Faith!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thus Ephesians 2:8 confirms this:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Faith is Big in Scripture

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Scripture Crushes Both Luther and Calvin's Understanding of Faith

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

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

and                                                                                                                                  

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

and

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

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

and

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

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

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

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

But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him. Hebrews 11:6

Darrell Brantingham

(Check out my pithy tweets on Twitter @confrontcalvin)

Dueling TULIPs? Calvinism's Confusion Is Showing!

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

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

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

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

4. Regular High Calvinism

5. Moderate Calvinism                                                                  

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dueling TULIPS                                                                                             

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Darrell Brantingham


(Check out my pithy tweets on Twiter @confrontcalvin)

Confronting Calvinism's Acts 13:48

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The verse then in paraphrased language could be stated:

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

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

But what IF...

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

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

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

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

Another one bites the dust...

Darrell Brantingham

(Check out my pithy tweets on Twitter @confrontcalvin)

There Are NO Clear Scriptures Supporting Calvinism

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

#3 - Total Depravity                                                                                                              

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

There is no scripture that states something like the following:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Darrell Brantingham

(Check out my pithy tweets @confrontcalvin).

Jesus Brought Gifts To Men When He Came

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

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

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

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

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

Let's start with some John 1:

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

2 The same was in the beginning with God.

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

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

More from John 1:                                                                                                            

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

More John 1:

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

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

12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Darrell Brantingham

(Check out my pithy tweets @confrontcalvin.)

Confronting Calvinism's Romans 9 - Part 2 - Proof Text Exposed

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 being proof of unconditional election.  This is Part 2 of this series on Romans 9 and in this article I will expose the passage of Romans 9 that Calvinism claims is proof of their doctrine of unconditional election.

Let's get into these specific scriptures that are used by Calvinism to try to prove their points regarding unconditional election.  Note that Calvinists use surgical exegesis to simply cut out verses 9 through 23 and ignore the full context of Romans 9 which establishes that Paul's agenda is Israel from start to finish.  We start at verse 9 of Romans 9:

9 For this is what the promise said, “About this time I will return and Sarah shall have a son.” 10 And not only so, but also when Rebecca had conceived children by one man, our forefather Isaac, 11 though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad, in order that God’s purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of his call, 12 she was told, “The elder will serve the younger.” 13 As it is written, “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.”

Jacob and Esau
In verse 9 Paul continues the discussion about Israel and this includes a reference to Rebecca and the two children that were in her womb.  Paul mentions that God chose Jacob over Esau and Calvinists love this statement but there are problems with their conclusion.  This passage is not about personal salvation in any way, shape or form as Calvinism attemps to construe it to mean.  Paul's statement is clearly about the lineage of Israel.  Paul's statement is about God's choosing of Jacob to continue the line of Israel and not Esau. This is proof of God's election for his purposes but is not proof of unconditional election leading to salvation.  Drawing this conclusion from this passage is very poor exegesis.

Some Calvinists go so far as to say that verse 13 indicates that God hates the people whom he does not choose for election but this too is bogus.  God simply uses hyperbolic language to show that he chose Jacob to be a founding father in Israel's line and not Esau.  Using the comparison of God loving Jacob while hating Esau is only Paul's demonstration as to how God had preference for Jacob as the continuing seed for Abraham's line leading to the birth of Jesus.  Where is there anything that says this passage is about salvation?  There is nothing!  This passage is about election as to the messianic line and is not about election unto salvation.

Consider the use of "hate" too in this passage.  When Jesus used the word "hate" to describe how we should love God more than our family (Luke 14:26), Jesus did not mean that we should actually hate our own family since Jesus even told us to love our enemies.  God "hating" Esau is only about God favoring Isaac, not Esau to continue the seed of his father, Isaac.

What Paul is really getting to here is found in Genesis 23.  Read the account and note what occurred:

20 And Isaac was forty years old when he took Rebekah to wife, the daughter of Bethuel the Syrian of Padanaram, the sister to Laban the Syrian.

21 And Isaac intreated the Lord for his wife, because she was barren: and the Lord was intreated of him, and Rebekah his wife conceived.

22 And the children struggled together within her; and she said, If it be so, why am I thus? And she went to enquire of the Lord.

23 And the Lord said unto her, Two nations are in thy womb, and two   manner of people shall be separated from thy bowels; and the one people shall be stronger than the other people; and the elder shall serve the younger.

24 And when her days to be delivered were fulfilled, behold, there were twins in her womb.

25 And the first came out red, all over like an hairy garment; and they called his name Esau.

26 And after that came his brother out, and his hand took hold on Esau's heel; and his name was called Jacob: and Isaac was threescore years old when she bare them.

So by Paul's intention he connects Romans 9 to Genesis 25 and Paul and the key verse that explains everything is verse 23.  In the passage, Rebekah comes to God in confusion about the war going on in her womb and God tells her that there are two nations in her womb.  We know that the seed of Jacob becomes the nation of Israel. Even Jacob's name is eventually changed to Israel.  Esau becomes the nation of Edom and scripture records the rancorous history that takes place for many years between the nations of Israel and Edom.

Romans 9 is about Israel and the promises God gave to it.  Calvinists never share Genesis 25 and the verses that I shared above.  Why?  Because this totally proves that Romans 9 is about Israel and Romans 9:13 is strictly about God choosing Jacob to become Israel.  There is nothing here about unconditional election.

So Romans 9 continues with Calvinism's desperate stretch to make Romans 9 their best proof text:

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.

Moses
In verse 14 Paul asks if God was at fault by choosing Jacob over Esau?  The answer of course is "no". In verse 15 Paul reminds the Romans that God had spoken to Moses and told him that he alone was the arbiter of mercy.  Paul quotes from Exodus 33:19 and the passage is specifically about God choosing by his mercy to show himself to Moses.  How does God showing himself to Moses have anything to do with Calvinist unconditional election? There is nothing here about personal salvation. .

God showed his mercy to Moses by showing him his glory. Where is the unconditional election here?  There is none.  God shows his mercy to Moses because Moses was faithful and God chooses to bless him by allowing him to see his glory.  What does this passage have to do with the salvation of anyone?

Verse 16 then is a continuation about God giving certain men special gifts and this is how he shows his mercy.

So far it is abundantly clear. Romans 9 proves nothing regarding unconditional election. 

There is still more scripture from Romans 9 that Calvinists use too:

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,

Pharoah
Okay, what about Pharoah?  Doesn't God hardening Pharoah's heart show that God hardens some people's hearts from the beginning so they cannot be saved?  No, this is sheer fantasy.  This passage about Pharoah is not about salvation either.  Pharoah was a leader that God rose up so that Israel would go free and has nothing to do with personal salvation.  Calvinists show negligence by failing to inform

folks when teaching Romans 9 that Pharoah had already hardened his own heart before God hardened his heart. God does harden people for his purposes at times and that is all that this is about. God does elect some to be used for his purposes over others but this does not include salvation.  Verse 20 declares that we cannot complain against God if we are not chosen for special purposes. God will raise up for special purposes those whom he will raise up.
We are not all raised up to be put into some great position and some who rebel against God may get used by God to further his purposes too. Either way, no one can complain against God and that is all this passage is stating.  Pharoah who was in rebellion to God was raised up and used by God for his purposes.  What does God's dealings with Pharoah prove about unconditional election? NOTHING!

Verse 21 has been quoted by Calvinists as proof God makes some for destruction and others for honor and proclaiming this is proof of unconditional election. However, this is not what the scripture says at all.  The verse is speaking to the honor and dishonor of people in terms of the distributions of callings and giftings and not about salvation. Honor and dishonor has to do with special considerations.  This is exactly the point that Paul makes in Romans 9.  Moses and Jacob were chosen to receive special honor and Esau was not.   Dishonor does not mean that God makes some people to be reprobate.  That is a huge stretch.  Honor has to do with receiving something special and dishonor is simply not receiving that special gift.  At the risk of sounding like a broken record: This too is not about salvation!

Verse 22 is about God showing longsuffering even to those who were folks who deserved destruction.  God is patient and longsuffering.  He let Cain live and marked him so that he would not be killed.  He let Ishmael and his mother live and protected them and their seed became many nations.  God let Esau live a prosperous life even after he chose a meal over his birthright.  Verse 22 is about God's patience with those who deserve punishment.

Verse 23 speaks of those whom God does choose to experience more of God's glory. This included Moses who was able to see God as God "made known the riches of his glory" to him.  This includes Jacob who went on to become Israel.  This speaks of all those whom God has chosen to receive a special knowledge of God's glory.  It has nothing to do with personal redemption and certainly proves nothing about the doctrines of Calvinism.

In conclusion my friends, all of Romans 9 is about Israel and how God rose up a people to advance his purposes as it applies to that chosen nation.   It tells us that God elevates some to positions to advance his purposes and that he shows his glory to whomever he pleases.  This passage is not about personal salvation or redemption.

If Romans 9 is Calvinism's best as most Calvinists admit, it can easily be concluded that the doctrine of unconditional election and all of Calvinism has been improperly exegeted. Romans 9 has as much to with unconditional election as Disneyland has to do with living in California.  The truth is that God has not predestined some to salvation and some to damnation without any responsibility on their part.

God is glorious and marvelous and all his ways are often hard for mere men to comprehend.  But he has given us his scripture and it proves he is loving, kind, merciful, patient and longsuffering.

Glory to God!

Darrell Brantingham

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

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).