>Once I was in a 'Christian' chat-room and I met an anti-Calvinist called gracenotlaw, who encouraged me to read some anti-Calvinist articles on websites which she recommended, and then repent of my error. I read the websites and e-mailed the people concerned who hosted the websites. I never got a reply. As most anti-Calvinistic websites tend to share the same articles and arguments, I print my answer, which could be used against any of them, to expose the errors of anti-Calvinism. I hope you benefit from it. [I have since learned that the author of the article I am refuting here is dead. Sadly, there is no evidence that he repented from his false gospel. I pray that God will grant repentance to those who read my rebutal, that they may repent from their false gospel].
Dear Sir, I have read your critique of Calvinism and I wish to reply.
On the subject of 'Total Depravity', Calvinists do not believe as you seem to imply, that man wants to come to Jesus for salvation but cannot. I would agree that no man will come, and that is the problem. No Calvinist denies that man has a will, he has a will, an active will, but, and here is the point which must be emphasised. His will is actively bent on evil. The Bible makes clear that man in his totality was affected by the Fall. His will is included. Man has a corrupt heart, and what motivates the will? The heart! A man will always follow the desires of his heart. That is his will at work. What desires does an unregenerate person have? Evil desires! Can an unregenerate person will to do good, will to please God, will Christ? No, he cannot. Oh, yes, he has legs to walk, he has a mouth to confess, he has a mind to think, but Romans 3 v 10-15 describes him thus, ''There is none righteous, no not one, There is none that understands, there is none that seeks after God. They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that does good, no not one. Their throat is an open sepulchre; with their tongues they have used deceit; the poison of asps is under their lips; whose mouth is full of bitterness, their feet are swift to shed blood'' Such a person can no more change his nature and love Christ and will His salvation and desire to submit to His Lordship than a tiger can will to eat broccoli, but God can change his nature, and must if he is ever to live.
Think also of Romans ch 8 v 7-8, 'Because the carnal mind is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be. So then they which are in the flesh cannot please God'. You see that an unsaved person is a natural God-hater. Will he will to come to Jesus? Can he please God? No, says Romans 8. Would it please God for a person to repent and believe on Jesus? Assuredly it would! Yet, Paul tells us here that the carnal man with his Christ-hating heart cannot do that. He doesn't want to. He is morally (not physically) unable to do it. He hates God, and he cannot do anything to please God. Such is man's state. Such a person will always! always! always! choose against Jesus when presented with the Saviour, because he has not eyes to see His loveliness, he has not ears to hear His voice.
Let us look what Paul tells the Corinthians, 'For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness'' 1 Cor 1 v 18. Note that, the Gospel comes to an unsaved person and it is ''foolishness'' to him. It offends his pride, his intellect. It just doesn't fit with him. Why? Because he is blind and stupid to the things of God. Will such a person believe? No. Again in ch 2 v 14 of the same epistle, ''But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness unto him, neither can he know them'' How can a person who thinks the Gospel foolishness receive Christ? How can he who does not receive the things of the Spirit of God choose life? He cannot, because his mind is darkened. Surely, the power of God is needed to overcome such darkness and blindness.
Further into the new testament in Ephesians ch 2 v 1, we read, ''And you has he [God] quickened who were dead in trespasses and sins''. Now, as you point out, the deadness of the Bible is not inactivity, but it is spiritual deadness, deadness toward God and toward righteousness, and only the ''quickening'' of God can change that.
To conclude this point: Man does not come to Christ because he is unwilling, and he is not willing because he has a wicked heart, and he cannot change his wicked nature, only God can. Man's inability to come is his own fault, and is a moral inability for which he has no excuse. An illustration from the OT should show this, Joseph's brothers hated him. In Genesis 37 v 4 we read these words, 'And when his brethren saw that their father loved him more than all his brethren, they hated him, and could not speak peaceably to him'' Do you see that? In the same way, the carnal man sees Christ and hates Him and cannot believe on Him. Is He excused? No. No more than Joseph's brethren are excused who consumed with hatred, could not speak peaceably to him
II. Unconditional Election Secondly, election is where God in His mercy and grace ordains to save some and in His justice and wrath to damn others. You, as well as many others, are deeply offended at this. But what does the Bible say? You accuse Calvinists of misquoting Eph ch 1. You say it makes no mention of election to heaven. I agree. The word heaven is not there. It says, God elected the Ephesians. When? : From before the foundation of the world. In whom? :In Christ. Why? : According to the good pleasure of His will. To what end? : That they would be holy and blameless before Him in love. Note: it does not say, He chose them because they were holy, or because they would be holy, or because God saw some potential holiness in them, but He chose them so that they WOULD BE holy! Now, if God chose some to be blameless before Him, what does that mean? Is to be holy and blameless before God not salvation? Is that not the aim of God's salvation that His People shall be one day found in His presence, holy and blameless? But lest I be accused of reading too much into the passage, let us look at further texts. In Acts 13v48, we read these words, ''When the Gentiles heard this, they were glad, and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed'' Why did some (not all, but ''as many as...'') believe? Because they were ordained, ....to what? Eternal life! On the other hand, we read some sobering and solemn words penned under inspiration by the Apostle Peter, ''Unto them which be disobedient, the stone which the builders rejected is made the head of the corner; and a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence, even to them which stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed'' (1 Peter 2 v 7-8). What? They were appointed to stumble?! Yes, that is the reality. In Romans ch 9, Paul discusses the subject at length. In that chapter he speaks of Jacob and Esau, and he says that before the twins were born, before they had done anything good or evil, God loved Jacob, but hated Esau. Why? Because that was His will and purpose. Can we object to God's awesome decree? No, says Paul, in v. 20, 'Nay but, O man, who are you who replies against God' God in chapter 9 asserts His absolute right to have mercy on whom He will have mercy (v.18). Paul competely disregards man's will, for ''it is not of him that wills, nor of him that runs but of God that shows mercy' (v.16). Paul leaves us in no doubt that election is not of works, but of grace, ''A remnant according to the election of grace. And if by grace, it is no more of works'' (Rom 11 v 5-6).
III. I do not believe in a limited atonement in the sense you think, but I believe, unlike you in an atonement. The atonement of which you write is no atonement at all, but a fiction. The atonement in the Bible actually atones. There is no such thing in the Bible as Jesus 'potentially' dying for sins. He actually did die and sins were actually atoned for, but clearly not all sins, for if all sins were atoned for then there could be no hell, because hell is where sins are punished, and how could God punish sins once in His Son and then again in hell? He won't demand satisfaction for sins twice. That would be contrary to His perfect justice. The language of Scripture is clear. Let us look at some of the words used.
1. Ransom: Jesus paid a ransom to whom? The Father. Now there are three parties in a ransom scenario: the person paying the ransom, the person who receives the ransom and the person for whom the ransom is made. In such a scenario the person ransomed is passive. He has no say on whether the ransom is paid, or not. He is helpless, and he has no say on whether the captors accept the ransom. The captor accepts the ransom! The sinner is held captive by the justice of God, and only when that justice is satisfied does the sinner go free. That is the terminology of the Bible. Jesus paid a ransom, and God must (His justice has been satsfied) accept that ransom for all the elect. Indeed He has, and has shown it in the resurrection of Jesus Christ. If God refused to save somebody for whom Christ died, what a travesty that would be to the work of His blessed Son! 2. Redemption means to release a slave from slavery by paying a price. Jesus paid the price and the sinners for whom the price was paid must go free. The slave in chains has no say in the matter. 3. Propitiation: to appease the wrath by means of a sacrifice. Jesus has propitiated the wrath of God and nobody for whom Christ was propitiation can suffer the wrath of God. The Holy God has been appeased. His wrath has been quenched in the blood of Jesus.
These terms, 'ransom', 'propitiation' and 'redemption' are the commonest used to denote the work on Calvary.
Now, you raise the objection that in verses such as 1 John 2v1 and other texts words such as ''world'' and ''all men'' are used to describe the sinners for whom Christ died. Many people, it seems, take such terms to mean ''all men without exception'' or the ''entire human race'' But is that necessarily the meaning of such terms? Let us consider some other verses where 'all men' and 'world' are used.
''The Pharisees therefore said, Perceive ye that ye prevail nothing, Behold the world is gone after him'' (John 12 v 19). Obviously, world cannot mean ''the entire human race'' in this instance.
''Diana . . . whom all Asia and the world worshippeth'' (Acts 19 v 27). Again, did Demetrius mean the entire human race, or even, the entire population of Asia?
''Men of Israel, help, this is the man that teacheth all men everywhere against all people . . . '' (Acts 21 v 28). I could add examples, but I hope you see my point.
''All men'' and ''world'' in the NT have various meaning, varying on context: 1). all people in a particular group or area. 2). A general term denoting all nations and peoples (not all individual persons in those nations) of the earth, a term used to emphasise that in the NT God's grace is shown not only to the Jews, but also to the Gentiles. An example of what the Bible means would be Rev 5 v 9, ''Thou wast slain and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood out of every kindred and people and nation''
The Bible is clear for whom Christ died, for those who actually are saved! He died for His sheep, but not the goats, see John 10, and note especially that some believe not because they are not Christ's sheep, v. 26. He died for the Church, ''which he hath purchased (*note He purchased her. He didn't make a bid in an auction and hope His bid would be accepted. He purchased His Church and He owns her and nothing can cause her to perish) with his own blood (Acts 20v28). Again in Ephesians ch 5v25, 'Christ loved the Church and gave Himself for her''. He died for God's People, 'For the transgression of my people He was stricken' (Isaiah 53 v 8) and He is called Jesus because He shall ''save His people from their sins'' (Matt 1v21). In all this He shall ''see the travail of his soul and be satisfied'' (Isaiah 53v11). Would He be satisfied if He wanted to be their Saviour and yet inspite of His best efforts they still were everlastingly to perish?
How can I as a sinner, desperately in need of mercy, have any confidence in Christ as a Saviour when I see (according to your belief) many whom He wanted to save and did His utmost to save nevertheless perish in hell for ever? Will I not also fear that just as His blood wasn't enough to save them, and His grace wasn't enough to overcome their unbelief (when I daily cry, Lord, I believe, help my unbelief!) that I might suffer as they do?
Sir, I believe that Jesus saves ALL THOSE He came to save and that He has secured (not just made a possibility) but actually SECURED at the cost of His own life the salvation of all His People, His Sheep, His Church. You believe that Christ did just enough to leave salvation entirely up to me. We believe two different Gospels.
IV.Concerning 'irrestible grace'' or my preferred term, 'effectual calling'' (unfortunately when we have an acronym such as TULIP the words might fit but the names leave a lot to be desired) you are horrified at the idea that ''man has no part in salvation, and cannot possibly cooperate with God in the matter. In no sense of the word and at no stage of the work does salvation depend upon the will or work of man or wait for the determination of his will''. This is terrible! Man has no part in salvation! Salvation is all of God! What a scandal to the self-righteous soul who needs, nay demands, that he have something to contribute. How the Bible brings man down and insults him! I fully affirm that man has no part in salvation and I would urge you to examine your heart to see the self-righteous indignation lurking there.
You say that man resists God. Indeed he does, and he would always resist God if left to the dictates of his will. Just because man opposes the testimony of the Spirit in the preaching of the word, and stubbornly refuses to repent is nothing against irrestible grace. It proves total depravity. But when God determines to convert a person that person will be saved, and then the call is effectual unto salvation. The calling of God must be understood in two aspects: the outward call of God in the preaching. This is resistible and often is resisted, but there is no grace in it. It is a command to believe. It is a summons by the King of Kings. It is a serious call, and woe betide any sinner who contemptously refuses this call, but there is another call, the inner working of the Spirit upon the elect sinner and this call is irresistible, because as Psalm 110v5 says, 'Thy people shall be willing in the day of thy power'. Only when God's power is show forth is the person made willing who before was unwilling. God opened the heart of Lydia in Acts 16v14; God ''causeth to approach unto Him'' people who are called blessed in Psalm 65v4; God gives repentance in Acts 5v31, Acts 11v18 and 2 Tim 2v25. It is said in Eph 2v8, Acts 18v27 and Philippians 1v29 that God gives faith to some, that faith is His gift. Salvation and conversion are something that only God can do. It is a resurrection, a creation, a bringing forth from the womb. It is a begetting unto eternal life. It is not a person choosing, in contra-disctinction to his neighbour, that he will believe by his freewill. ''For who maketh you to differ, says Paul, from another? and what hast thou that thou didst not receive? (it doesn't say ''accept'' mind, but ''receive'', a passive term), now if thou didst receive it, why dost thou glory, as if thou hadst not received it?'' (1 Cor 4v7). Is conversion by the will of man? Do some receive Christ by freewill as you claim John 1 v 12 teaches? Read v. 13, ''Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God'' Is the new birth about man's freewill? Not so, says James in James 1 v 18, ''Of His own will He (God) begat us with the word of truth'' God's will is the will which causes the new birth, not man's.
Now, you claim that God wants all to be saved and has left it up to the individual to decide and in defence you bring forth your three ''big guns'': Matt 23v37, 2 Peter 3v9 and 1 Tim 2v4. Let me address these three texts.
In Matthew ch 23 Jesus has just finished castigating the Pharisees and has pronounced on them a series of woes, and he ends His diatribe with these words, 'Oh, Jerusalem, Jerusalem . . .' Jesus is scolding Jerusalem and who is Jerusalem? The population of the city? No, the leaders. In proof, I refer you to Matt 2 v 3, 'Now when Herod heard these things he was troubled and all Jerusalem with him'. Is it not obvious, then, that the troubled leaders are in view here? So in Matt 23 the leaders of the people are the target of Jesus' anger. They are the ones who ''would not''. They didn't want Jesus to gather the children of Jerusalem. They did all they could to oppose Him. But did Jesus want to gather them, the leaders, Jerusalem? No, He wanted to gather the children. Were the children unwilling? It doesn't say that. It says Jerusalem was unwilling. Did Jesus gather the children together? Yes, He did. Why is it so important to you to make Jesus fail? Because you cannot accept that Jesus does everything in salvation. You must have something for yourself! But let the Book answer. We read of the children in John 11 v 51-52, ''that also He should gather together in one the children of God scattered abroad'' He did it. It was prophesied that He would and He did. Did the Father give Him a mission and Jesus failed? Never. 'For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of Him that sent Me. And this is the Father's will which hath sent Me, that of all that he hath given me I should lose nothing but raise him up at the last day' (John 6 v 38-39)
2 Peter 3 v 9: Peter is speaking here of the 2nd Coming of Jesus Christ, and he mentions here that ''God is not slack concerning His promise''. What promise? To send Jesus back! For whom? For His People. Now, Peter explains here why the Lord tarries, and why is that? Because He is longsuffering. Toward whom? To ''us-ward''. Who are they? God's People called 'beloved' in v. 8. He is not willing that any of us (His People) should perish, but that all (of us) should come to repentance'' Let us consider the alternative: If I take all in its ''most literal'' sense, I am saying this, God hasn't sent Jesus back yet, because He is awaiting something. He is awaiting that none should perish and all shall come to repentance and He is going to wait until that happens. When will that be? Never! , so Peter is saying that Jesus is never coming back? Away with such nonsense! Note one more thing, in v. 15, Peter adds, ''Account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation''. It doesn't say, a possibility or chance of salvation, but actual salvation, so God is longsuffering and saves those to whom He is longsuffering, another reason for saying that He is longsuffering towards some only.
1 Tim 2v4 says that God will have ''all men to be saved''. Does this mean the entire human race? No. Read v. 1, Paul tells Timothy to pray for all men. Does that mean the entire human race? Does that mean the dead? Does that mean those who have committed a sin unto death (1 John 5 v 16)? Would Christ have us pray for all when even He prayed not for the world (John 17v9)? Is it not clear that Paul means all kinds of men, all classes of men, all types of men, especially in the context, kings and those in authority? Why must it mean the entire human race in v 4? If God wants all without exception to come to repentance, why does Matthew write in Chapter 11 v 25-26, 'I thank thee O Father . . . because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent and revealed them to babes. Even so, Father, for so it seemed good in thy sight (in the parallel passage in Luke 10 v 21 Luke records that Jesus rejoiced in Spirit about God's decree to hide truth from some and reveal it to others, and yet you shrink back in horror at the thought. Why does God deliberatelty hide the truth by parables as Jesus explains in Mark 4 v 11-12? ''Unto them that are without all these things are done in parables: That seeing they may see, and not perceive, and hearing they may hear, and not understand; lest at any time they should be converted and their sins should be forgiven them''
V.Concerning Perseverance of the Saints, you seem to throw out your freewillism completely and affirm eternal security. It is Perseverance of the Saints. We must persevere, not in our own strength, or because of our own efforts, or virtue, but because God preserves us in HIS GRACE. God is no half-hearted Saviour. He has purposed to save His elect and He shall succeed. God preserves the SAINTS in holiness and righteousness, He does NOT preserve SINNERS in their sin. If a person lives in continuous rebellion to God, that is an evident token, that he has not been born again. ''Nevertheless, the foundation of God standeth sure, having this seal, the Lord knoweth them that are his. And let every one that nameth the name of the Lord depart from iniquity(2 Timothy 2 v 19). God will not allow His children to live in sin, and fall away from Him. Therefore He chastens them, sometimes very severely, to purge away their dross : ''For whom the Lord loveth (not everyone, because He doesn't love everyone, see Psalm 11v5, Psalm 5v5 and Romans 9v 13) He chasteneth, and scourgeth every son He receiveth'' (Heb 12 v 6) ''But when we are judged, we are chastened of the LORD, that we should not be condemned with the world'' (1 Cor 11 v 32). I have little quarrel with your comments on the fifth point.
I would urge you to consider that the Gospel you believe and preach is self-righteous, for you believe that you and your converts contribute to salvation, and you will not give God all the glory in salvation. If many for whom Christ died are NOT saved by His death as you teach, Calvary CANNOT BE enough to save them, because evidently inspite of God's love and desire to save them, and Christ's blood to save them, they were and are not saved.
If that is not enough, something must be added, or brought to the cross to make it effective unto actual salvation. And what is that something? My..........acceptance, my..........freewill choice, my.......act of choosing Him to be my ''personal Saviour'' when He could have been everybody's potential saviour, my........asking Jesus into my heart, my........making Him Lord of my life, my......co-operating with the grace He gave me. I must (if I have an understanding that Calvary was potentially something for everybody) bring something from me as the ULTIMATE REASON for my salvation. You CANNOT and WILL NOT see that you have NOTHING to bring. You believe that you made the ''final step'' in salvation, and that salvation would not be salvation without your input. You are seeking a righteousness of your own, some reason to assert yourself above others who are not saved, and are not subject to the righteousness of Christ. You are OFFENDED at the truth of the Gospel, and think it a scandal and grossly unfair that God doesn't at least give everybody a chance at salvation. You make Calvary incidental to salvation because there are many (in your mind) who inspite of Calvary are not saved by it because they DID NOT DO SOMETHING which they you supposedly did. You need to, by God's grace, to repent of dishonouring Jesus in your messages and ask God to have mercy on you. May God 'give you repentance to the acknowledging of the truth' (see 2 Tim 2v25)May you cling only unto what Christ has done for the salvation of His People, seeing ALL SALVATION in Him and NOTHING in anything which comes from you
