Not Willing That Any Should Perish - Re: Thinking

B Y T . A L L A N T U R N E R

Not Willing

That Any

Should PerishA critical examination of the doctrine of Determinism as taught by

Augustine, Calvin, Luther et al., but particularly as set forth by Calvinism's

Five Points: Total Depravity, Unconditional Election, Limited Atonement,

Irresistible Grace, and the Perseverance of the Saints.

© Allanita Press

CONTENTS

An Introduction . . . . . 1

God’s Sovereignty . . . . . 3

Man’s Free Will . . . . . 11

The Foreknowledge Of God . . . . . 14

The Five Points Examined . . . . . 18

Calvinistic “Sugar-Sticks” . . . . . 28

Conclusion . . . . . 31

An Introduction

John Calvin, the brilliant systematic theolo-gian of the Reformation, in explaining Pre-destination, said:Predestination we call the eternal decreeof God, by which He has determined inHimself, what would have to become ofevery individual of mankind. For theyare not all created with a similar des-tiny; but eternal life is foreordained forsome and eternal death for others. Everyman, therefore, being created for one orthe other of these ends, we say he is pre-destinated either to life or to death (In-stitutes, Book III, Chapter XXI, section5).According to Loraine Boettner, the well-

known interpreter of Calvinism, Martin Luther,the father of the Reformation, “was as zealousfor absolute predestination as was Calvin” (TheReformed Doctrine Of Predestination, page 15).To prove his point, Boettner quotes Luther'scommentary on Romans, where Luther said: “Allthings whatever arise from, and depend on, thedivine appointment; whereby it was foreor-dained who should receive the word of life, andwho should disbelieve it; who should be deliv-ered from their sins, and who should be hard-ened in them; and who should be justified andwho should be condemned.” To further make hispoint, Boettner even quotes Melanchthon, Cal-vin's student, who is reported to have said: “Allthings turn out according to divine predestina-tion; not only the works we do outwardly, buteven the thoughts we think inwardly”; andagain, “There is no such thing as chance, or for-tune; nor is there a readier way to gain the fearof God...than to be thoroughly versed in the doc-trine of Predestination.” Furthermore, BenjaminB. Warfield, who in the opinion of some Calvin-ists is the most outstanding Reformed theologiansince Calvin himself, makes his belief in abso-lute predestination very clear. In an article enti-tled “Predestination,” Warfield said thatPredestination was “broad enough to embracethe whole universe of things, and minute enoughto concern itself with the smallest details, andactualizing itself with inevitable certainty inevery event that comes to pass.” (Biblical Doc-trines, pages 13,22).

What Calvinists Teach Is Clear

Calvinists believe that absolutely nothinghappens that God has not foreordained or pre-destined to happen! If an individual goes toheaven, it is because God predestined that hewould, independent of anything this individualwould do of his own free will; on the other hand,if an individual goes to hell, it is because Godpredestined that he would, independent of any-thing this individual would do of his own freewill. This point is clearly stated in the Westmin-ster Confession:

Those of mankind that are predesti-nated unto life, God, before the founda-tion of the world was laid, according toHis eternal and immutable purpose, andthe secret counsel and good pleasure ofHis will, hath chosen in Christ, unto ev-erlasting glory, out of His mere graceand love, without any foresight of faithor good works, or perseverance in eitherof them, or any other thing in the crea-ture, as conditions, or causes movingHim thereunto; and all to the praise ofHis glorious grace (Chapter III, sectionsIII-VII).It is against such error that this study is

dedicated.

What I Believe The Bible Teaches

I believe the Bible teaches that Christ diedfor all people, for those who perish no less thanfor those who are saved; that the election of thesaints is not an unconditional act of God; thatsaving grace is actually extended to every man,which he may then receive or reject; that manmay resist the Holy Spirit’s invitation to besaved, if he so chooses; that God’s grace, onceaccepted, can then be rejected, and is, therefore,not necessarily permanent, but that those whoare ransomed by the precious blood of Christcan, if they are so disposed, throw away all Godhas so graciously given them and perish eter-nally. This statement is not a creed to be imple-mented in all the churches; it is, instead, myown systematic theology. It is my convictionthat all these things are taught in the Bible. Istand ready to give a reason for the hope that is

Page 1

“Not Willing That Any Should Perish”© 2002 by Allan Turner

in me by citing book, chapter, and verse for whatI believe. Actually, the design of this study is todo exactly this! As I examine the cardinal argu-ments of Calvinism, I will be refuting each argu-ment the Calvinists make with a “thus sayeththe Lord.” This is only as it should be, for the fi-nal authority by which any doctrine or theologi-cal system is to be judged must always be God’sword.

Put On Your Thinking Cap

When it comes to Calvinism, many Chris-tians continue to be “children, tossed to and froand carried about with every wind of doctrine,by the trickery of men, in the cunning craftinessby which they lie in wait to deceive” (Ephesians4:14). This is not because the Bible is somehowunclear on the subject. The Bible clearly and em-phatically denies Calvinism. If God is “not will-ing that any should perish, but that all shouldcome to repentance” (2 Peter 3:9), then Calvin-ism simply cannot be true. The problem formany is that the Bible is not a book on system-atic theology. For example, the Bible teaches,but does not systematically set forth, the doc-trines of the triune nature of God, the deity ofChrist, the personality of the Holy Spirit, the re-ality of future rewards in heaven and condemna-tion in hell, all of which are questioned by somewho claim to be Christians. The Bible is God’sspecial revelation to man. As such, it has a be-ginning and an end. When one has studied thisrevelation from beginning to end, he then knowswhat it is God wants him to know about themyriad subjects contained therein. Only thencan one begin to systematize these subjects. Al-though systematization is an essential process oftheology, it is at this very point that men beginto go astray (by theology I mean only thelegitimate study of God and His revelation). Thisproblem is dealt with by the apostle Paul, whosaid, “Study to shew thyself approved unto God,a workman that needeth not to be ashamed,rightly dividing the word of truth” (2 Timothy2:15, KJV). God’s word always accomplisheswhat He intends; in other words, it never re-

turns void (Isaiah 55:11). Therefore, how we in-terpret or “rightly divide” the Scriptures isextremely important. It is at this point thatsheep begin to be separated from goats (John10:16,27; Revelation 3:20). There is no excusefor getting caught up in the error of Calvinism,none except ignorance of God’s word! Unfortu-nately, ignorance is a major problem amongGod’s people today. Some are ignorant becausethey are still babes in Christ. Others are ignorantbecause they lack someone to teach them. Still,other Christians are ignorant through no faultbut their own. They do not like to study God’sword. Studying is hard work. It requires one tothink and, quite frankly, these folks just do notwant to think. However, if we are not ready tostudy the word of God, thinking it out andthinking it through, then we will, quite natu-rally, wrest the Scriptures to our own destruc-tion (cf. 2 Peter 3:16). If you are not willing to“gird up the loins of your mind” (1 Peter 1:13),then this study is not for you. Consequently,your lot in this life is to be “tossed to and fro,and carried about with every wind of doctrine,by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness,whereby they lie in wait to deceive” (Ephesians4:14, KJV). On the other hand, if you, like a newborn babe, “desire the pure milk of the word,that you may grow thereby” (2 Peter 2:2), then Ibelieve you will appreciate this study.

Search The Scriptures

Remember, this study represents the think-ing of the author, who has endeavored to “speakas the oracles of God” (1 Peter 4:11). He couldbe wrong! Ultimately, it is your responsibility to“search the Scriptures” for yourself (John 5:39)to see whether these things are so (cf. Acts17:11). The author has cited passages he be-lieves authenticate his arguments. As you en-gage in this study, please read these passages foryourself. Make sure they are used correctly andnot taken out of context. May God richly blessyou as you study His word.

Page 2


God's Sovereignty

In an over-reaction to Calvinist extremes,many Christians have shied away from astudy of God’s sovereignty. This is a serious

mistake. The sovereignty of God is a thoroughlybiblical subject. Although the words “sovereign”or “sovereignty” are not found in the KJV, one orboth of these words appear in the NKJV, ASV,NIV, and NRSV. Nevertheless, the idea of God’ssovereignty is clearly taught in both the Old andNew Testament. “Sovereignty,” according to theAmerican Heritage Dictionary, means, “Suprem-acy of authority or rule as exercised by a sover-eign.” This idea is applied to God by such wordsas “dominion,” “rule,” “ruler,” “Lord,” “King,”and “Potentate.” As Jack Cottrell points out inhis outstanding book What The Bible Says AboutGod The Ruler, “The sovereignty of God may beconcisely summed up as absolute Lordship.”Sovereignty, then, is equal to lordship, lordshipis equal to ownership, and ownership is equal tocontrol. It is precisely at this point that Calvin-ism strays. We will have more to say about thisfarther along; but before proceeding on, let usmake sure we understand the ramifications ofSovereignty.

The Ramifications Of Sovereignty

If God is truly the Sovereign of the universe,then whatever happens, we are told, is the willof God. A young baby dies of cancer or a youngmother or father is seriously injured in an auto-mobile accident and this is said to be God’s will.We pray earnestly for a fellow Christian's recov-ery from a serious illness and in closing ourprayer we say, “Not our will but Thine be done.”But, recovery does not take place and death oc-curs. Has God’s will really been done? Invaria-bly, at funerals, if one listens to what is beingsaid to the bereaved, one will be heard saying,“It is God’s will.” Are these things truly God’swill, and if so, in what sense?

Repelled by the thought of a loving God be-ing responsible for the death of the innocent andthose we love, many Christians have concludedthat God is not yet Sovereign Ruler of the uni-verse. Unlike now, one day, they say, God’s willis to be done in all things. As sympathetic as weare to their reasons for coming to this conclu-sion, we are nevertheless convinced that those

who hold such a position are terribly wrong.From a biblical standpoint, the sovereignty ofGod is simply not open for debate. If God is notsovereign, He is clearly not God! Therefore,when I answer “yes” to the question, “Is it truethat whatever happens is the will of God?,” Imust make sure that those who hear me under-stand that my answer is not an unqualified“yes.” Failing to do so would be theologicallymisleading and personally devastating.

My “yes” is qualified by the fact that thereare at least three different senses in which the“will of God” is used in the Bible. When we un-derstand the different ways in which this phraseis used, then we can understand that God is notpersonally nor directly responsible for the manythings people want to either credit or discreditHim with, even though it remains true that eve-rything that happens ultimately falls within Hissovereignty.

God's Decretive Will

There are things that God decrees to hap-pen. He causes these things to happen by Hisown omnipotence. These can be described asGod’s decretive will. A biblical description ofGod’s decretive will is found in Psalm 33:11,which says: “The counsel of the Lord stands for-ever, the plans of His heart from generation togeneration,” and again in Isaiah 14:27, whichsays: “For the Lord of hosts has planned, andwho can frustrate it? And as for His stretched-out hand, who can turn it back?”

It was God’s decretive will that was at workin His scheme to redeem mankind through HisSon Jesus Christ (cf. Acts 2:23; 4:28; Colossians1:4). For the Bible believer, it is a given thatwhatever God purposes cannot be thwarted. Forexample, in Romans 8:28-30, we learn that Godhas decreed that He will justify, and one day glo-rify, certain foreknown individuals (viz., “who-soever will”) on the basis of a foreordainedChrist (cf. Acts 2:23; 1 Peter 1:19, 20), a fore-ordained gospel plan (cf. 1 Corinthians 2:7),and a foreordained life (cf. Ephesians 2:10).With this fact firmly established, the apostlePaul joyously affirms, “If God is for us, who canbe against us?” (Romans 8:31).

Page 3


In like manner, the doctrine of the resurrec-tion rests firmly on God’s decretive will. In John6:40, Jesus said, “And this is the will of Himwho sent Me, that everyone who sees the Sonand believes in Him may have everlasting life;and I will raise him up at the last day.” Again,“If God is for us, who can be against us?” What-ever God proposes, and Himself carries out,will, in fact, happen. This is the reason why Godcan assert He declares “the end from the begin-ning, and from ancient times things that are notyet done, saying, ‘My counsel shall stand, and Iwill do all My pleasure’” (Isaiah 46:10), whichis God’s decretive will.

God's Preceptive Will

But there is a second way in which the “willof God” is used in the Bible. This has to do notwith what God purposed to do Himself, but withwhat He desires for man to do. This can be de-scribed as God's preceptive will and is primarilyconcerned with man's obedience to His word orprecepts. The writer of Hebrews speaks of the“will of God” in this sense when he writes, “Foryou have need of endurance, so that after youhave done the will of God, you may receive thepromise” (Hebrews 10:36). It was in this sensethat the Lord used the expression in Matthew7:21: “Not every who says to Me, Lord, Lord,shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he whodoes the will of My Father in heaven.” When Je-sus said “the will of My Father,” He was speak-ing of God’s precepts, statutes, or command-ments. Consequently, it is in connection withGod’s preceptive will, and not His decretivewill, that man is commanded to “work out [his]own salvation with fear and trembling”(Philippians 2:12).

Furthermore, it is in connection with God’spreceptive will that we understand that the Lordis “longsuffering toward us, not willing that anyshould perish but that all should come to repen-tance” (2 Peter 3:9). Actually, God’s desire (i.e.,His will) for the salvation of all men is reflectedmany places in His word (cf. I Timothy 2:4;Luke 7:30; Matthew 23:37), but such must bekept distinct from His decretive will. A failure tomake such a distinction will cause one to landsquarely within the Calvinist camp.

God's Permissive Will

There is a third sense in which the “will ofGod” is used in the Scriptures. It can be de-scribed as God’s permissive will. Perhaps it iswith God’s permissive will that men have themost trouble. In this category are to be found all

those things which God neither purposes nor de-sires, but which he allows man, in his freedom,to bring about. (There is a sense in which thisthird category is related to the second, God’spreceptive will. With a strict use of the word “per-missive,” it can be seen that man’s response toGod’s desire or preceptive will is not decreed orpurposed by Him, and is, therefore, permitted. Inother words, God does not make someone obeyHis laws; but, in the strictest sense, He simplypermits one to do so.) That which makes thisthird category different from the second is notthe presence of God’s permission, but the ab-sence of a stated desire on God’s part that theseevents or circumstances should happen. In thiscategory are events God neither purposed nordesired, but, nevertheless, permits, includingsome things that are clearly contrary to Hisstated desire (will), such as man’s sins. There-fore, when, in Jeremiah 19:5, God said, “Theyhave also built the high places of Baal, to burntheir sons with fire for burnt offerings to Baal,which I did not command or speak, nor did itcome into my mind,” He made it plain that itwas not His will they were doing, whether decre-tive or preceptive. In other words, it was not themind (will) of God that they should do such athing. Nevertheless, the Lord permitted His peo-ple to exercise their free wills and do thosethings clearly contrary to His counsel (will).Things such as this are within the “will of God”only in the sense that He permits them to hap-pen (cf. Acts 17:24-30; 14:16; Romans 1:18-32).

God’s permissive will allows both bad andgood things to occur. It is used by Paul in thislatter sense in 1 Corinthians 16:7, when hewrites: “For I do not wish to see you now on theway; but I hope to stay a while with you, if theLord permits.” Again, he uses it this way when,in Acts 18:21, he writes: “I must by all meanskeep this coming feast in Jerusalem; but I will re-turn again to you, God willing.” The writer ofHebrews put it this way: “And this we will do ifGod permits” (Hebrews 6:3).

Of course, sometimes the Lord does not will(permit) something to happen that His creaturesdesire to happen. As Sovereign, He has the per-fect right to do so. For example, in Acts 16:7,Luke writes: “After they had come to Mysia theytried to go into Bithynia, but the Spirit did notpermit them.” And, according to James, theheight of man’s prideful arrogance is manifestedby the one who does not take into considerationthe fact that his desires may be, and sometimesare, superseded by the Sovereign Ruler of theuniverse (cf. James 4:13-15).

Page 4


Control Not Causation

Calvinists have thought that the key to sov-ereignty is causation. They are wrong. The keyto sovereignty is ultimate control. Through Hisabsolute foreknowledge of every plan of man'sheart, and through His absolute ability (omnipo-tence) to either permit or prevent any particularplan man may have, God maintains completecontrol (sovereignty) over His creation. Thepower to prevent means that God ultimately hasthe final word in everything that happens. Todeny this is to deny the sovereignty of God!

It is true, then, that whatever happens isGod’s will. Everything that transpires fallswithin the sovereign will of God in one sense oranother. However, it is absolutely crucial to un-derstand that there are three different senses inwhich this may be true:

• Sometimes a thing occurs because Goddecides it will happen, and then Hemakes it happen. This we have calledGod's decretive will and it seems to belimited mostly to His working out the“scheme of redemption.”

• Sometimes a thing occurs because Goddesires it and man decides, of his ownfree will, to do what God desires. Thiswe have identified as God’s preceptivewill and has to do with God’scommandments or precepts.

• Sometimes a thing occurs because of theagency of an individual or group ofindividuals, and God permits it tohappen. We have called this God’spermissive will. Included in thiscategory are sinful or careless acts likemurder, or the death of one caused bythe actions of a drunken driver. Eventragedies that occur through the naturalprocesses would fit in this category. Allthree of these categories can beclassified as “God’s will,” but only thefirst category is God’s will in anycausative sense. And even though God isSovereign Ruler of the universe,categories two and three remind us thatwe must allow the Sovereign Ruler torespect the integrity of the freedom Hehas so graciously accorded His creation.As His creatures, we must learn to trustGod's wisdom in knowing what goodcan be drawn from the tragic episodesHe permits to take place in categorythree.

Does God Have An Individual Will For EachPerson's Life?

Those who ask this question assume an indi-vidual, specific will for every person. They as-sume that God has an ideal, detailed blueprintalready drawn up for each person’s life. They as-sume that for any decision we face there is a spe-cific choice (in the most restrictive sense) thatGod wants us to make. This applies to the schoolwe should attend, the occupation we shouldchoose, and the specific individual God wants usto marry. In his book, Knowing God's Will, AndDoing It!, J. Grant Howard, Jr. expressed it thisway:

Scripture teaches us that God has a pre-determined plan for every life. It is thatwhich will happen. It is inevitable, un-conditional, immutable, irresistible,comprehensive, and purposeful. It isalso, for the most part, unpredictable. Itincludes everything, even sin and suffer-ing. It involves everything, even humanresponsibility and human decisions(Page 12).A good summary of this view is given by

Garry Friesen in his book Decision Making & theWill of God:

God’s individual will is that ideal, de-tailed life-plan which God has uniquelydesigned for each believer. This life-planencompasses every decision we makeand is the basis of God’s daily guidance.This guidance is given through the in-dwelling Holy Spirit who progressivelyreveals God’s life-plan to the heart ofthe individual believer...” (Page 35).Although this view is very popular, we are

convinced that the idea of an individual, specificwill of God for every detail of a person’s life isnot taught in God’s word. Calvinists and otherdeterminists argue that the Bible is filled withexamples of individuals for whom God had aspecific plan, such as Abraham, Isaac, Jacob,Moses, David, John the Baptist, Paul et al. Buteach of these examples was highly unusual andwas related to God’s working out of His plan ofsalvation for fallen mankind, that is, the Schemeof Redemption. Furthermore, the specific planthat God had for each of these individuals wasrevealed to them by special revelation and,therefore, cannot be seen as normative for ordi-nary believers today.

Those who affirm God’s individual will foreach person usually cite passages like Psalm32:8; Proverbs 3:5,6; Isaiah 30:20,21; Colos-sians 1:9 and 4:12; Romans 12:1,2; Ephesians2:10 and 5:15-17. But when these passages areconsidered in their context, a much strongercase can be made for these passages in terms ofGod’s preceptive or moral will (which we have

Page 5


already discussed at some length) and not Hisdecretive will.

Being Led By The Spirit

But someone will say, “How about being‘led by the Spirit?’” In Romans 8:14, the Scrip-tures say, “For as many as are led by the Spirit ofGod, they are the sons of God,” and in Galatians5:18, it says, “But if ye be led of the Spirit, yeare not under law.” The Calvinist thinks theHoly Spirit influences him through some myste-rious inward guidance. The Bible does not teachsuch a doctrine, these two passages included,and we are firmly convinced that when one be-gins to listen to some inner voice, he is headedfor trouble. In fact, Romans 8:26-27 does notsay anything about the Holy Spirit speaking tous at all. What it says is: “...the Spirit Himselfmakes intercession for us with groanings whichcannot be uttered. Now He who searches thehearts knows what the mind of the Spirit is, be-cause He makes intercession for the saints ac-cording to the will of God.” Being led by theSpirit of God has to do with one’s obedience toGod’s word (i.e., God’s preceptive or moralwill), which is, according to Ephesians 6:17, the“sword of the Spirit.” Being led by the Spirit in adirect way, like was promised to the apostles (cf.John 16:12-14), was never intended to be un-derstood as being available to all Christians. Inother words, direct guidance by God’s HolySpirit was promised specifically to the Lord’sapostles, not Christians in general, and was forthe specific purpose of revealing the Bible, notfor inner guidance for all Christians (cf.Ephesians 3:3-5).

We find it ironic that those who are waitingto know God’s will for themselves through someinner guidance or miracle apart from the Wordare the very ones who miss God’s will for theirlives by not obeying His preceptive or moral will.I have personally taught the gospel to thosecaught up in this deceptive doctrine and havehad them tell me that if God wanted them to bebaptized for the remission of sins, He wouldhave told them directly through a direct opera-tion of the Holy Spirit. As they erroneously waitfor a direct revelation of God’s decretive will,they fail to obey His preceptive will. As one cansee, this is a most damnable doctrine!

But, in rejecting such a doctrine, one mustnot jump to another equally extreme positionwhich says that knowing the will of God is irrele-vant to daily decision making. The will of God(particularly His preceptive will as revealed inthe Scriptures) is always applicable to our dailylives. God’s Word is to be the reference point for

our decision making. This means that the mostsophisticated technique for knowing the will ofGod in our lives is: “All Scripture is given by in-spiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine,for reproof, for correction, for instruction inrighteousness, that the man of God might becomplete, thoroughly equipped for every goodwork” (2 Timothy 3:16). This means that what-ever God instructs us to do in His Word, eitherthrough commands or general principles, is Hiswill for our lives. In other words, if God wantsus to do it, then it is in the book! Thus, when thequestion is asked, “How can I know God’s willfor my life?,” we answer, “Read the Bible.”

Not As Many “Thou Shalts” And “Thou ShaltNots” As You Might Think

Contrary to what a lot of people think,God’s preceptive will for man has very few“thou shalts” and “thou shalt nots.” Most ofwhat God would have us do is learned from prin-ciples taught in His Word. This is why Biblestudy is so important. Unless we are thoroughlyfamiliar with God’s Word, we will not know theprinciples that allow us to make the right deci-sions in our lives. For example, when we are fa-miliar with the sanctity of life ethic taughtthroughout the Bible, we are able to make theright decisions concerning the many pressing is-sues of our day, namely, abortion, euthanasia,capital punishment, etc. In times past, God’speople perished because they were ignorant ofHis Word (cf. Hosea 4:1), and the same thingcan happen to us today if we are not careful.

But, and this is very important, many of thedecisions we face every day are neither requirednor forbidden. The key to understanding thispoint is to be found in the idea that it is not ourtask to know if a particular decision is God'swill, but rather if it is within God’s will. For ex-ample, the inspired apostle wrote, “But if any-one does not provide for his own, and especiallyfor those of his household, he has denied thefaith and is worse than an unbeliever” (Timothy5:8). This is God’s preceptive will and it re-quires, among other things, that a parent pro-vide nourishing food for his children. As long asthis general principle is met, the specific deci-sion of whether to have liver and onions or steakand green beans for dinner does not really mat-ter. Whether one eats in the kitchen or the din-ing room, or whether the beans are fresh orfrozen, or whether one has a hamburger forbreakfast, lunch or dinner, does not matter toGod. Once again, as long as the general require-ments of this passage are being met, God is notreally concerned about the specific choices that

Page 6


are made. Understanding this point can be liber-ating for those who have thought God wantedthem to make a specific choice in every decision.

To be pleasing to God, everything we domust fall within His preceptive will (cf.Colossians 3:17), even those things that are notspecifically required by it, such as matters ofopinion and indifference. For instance, we havethe right (i.e., it falls within God’s will) either toeat or not eat meat; but, and this is terribly im-portant, we have no right to bind either of theseon anyone else (cf. Romans 14:1-13). Likewise,we have the right (i.e., it falls within the um-brella of God’s preceptive will) to send our chil-dren to either a public or private school; but wehave no right to bind either of these on someoneelse. Furthermore, we have the right (i.e., Godgrants permission) to marry within or outsideour own race; but we have no right to bind ourpersonal convictions on another person. Thereare, of course, many other things that could belisted here, but you see the point, do you not?

God is not nearly as judgmental as somepeople think. When someone insists on makinghis personal convictions the judge and jury ofother men’s consciences, he becomes muchmore judgmental than God Himself. The Bibleteaches it is just as wrong to bind where God hasnot bound as it is to loose where He has notloosed. The apostle Paul warned against theformer when he said, “Who are you to judge an-other man’s servant?” (Romans 14:4).

Making Right Choices

Within the liberty we have in Christ, our de-sire is to make the best choice among the manydifferent options we have been given. Unfortu-nately, our experiences tell us that we do not al-ways make the best choices. After the fact, werealize that the exercising of an alternative op-tion would have been a much better choice, al-though the choice we actually made was notsinful. Nevertheless, having seen how our choiceturned out, we now know it was not the bestchoice. As we are often told, “Hindsight is betterthan foresight.” What, then, is our problem? Intruth, ours is a lack of wisdom!

The Bible says, “If any of you lacks wisdom,let him ask of God, who gives to all liberally andwithout reproach, and it will be given to him”(James 1:5). If the lack of wisdom is what keepsus from making the best choices, and it is, all weneed to do is ask the Lord for wisdom, He'll giveit to us, and then we will always make the bestchoices in life, it's as simple as this! Or is it? Al-though this wisdom comes from God as a directresponse to our prayer, and is, therefore, some-

thing other than just a knowledge of God’s pre-ceptive will, it must not be thought of as either amagic formula or instant omniscience. Neithershould we think of it as something totally di-vorced from one’s knowledge of the Scriptures.Yes, we are assured that if we ask the Lord forwisdom, He will give it to us, but Proverbs 4:5commands us to “Get wisdom, get understand-ing,” implying that wisdom and understandingmust be acquired, and, consequently, not some-thing to be received passively. Proverbs 4:5qualifies James 1:5, that is, it tells us that wis-dom is not going to be given without some efforton our part. Furthermore, wisdom has to dowith how we use the knowledge we alreadyhave. Within the context of Proverbs 4, wisdom,which is identified as the “principle thing”(verse 7), is connected to “instruction,” “doc-trine,” “commandments,” and being “taught,”and by application to the subject at hand, aknowledge of God’s word. In fact, even a casualreading of the “Wisdom Literature” will demon-strate the connection between instruction andwisdom. In addition, Moses, at the beginning ofthe Law, said: “Surely I have taught you statutesand judgments, just as the Lord my God com-manded me, that you should act according tothem in the land which you go to possess. There-fore be careful to observe them; for this is yourwisdom and your understanding in the sight ofthe peoples who will hear all these statutes, andsay, ‘Surely this great nation is a wise and un-derstanding people’” (Deuteronomy 4:5-6).Again, wisdom and understanding are associ-ated with God’s instructions and command-ments. In 2 Timothy 3:15, being “wise untosalvation” is connected with “the holy scrip-tures.” Therefore, a man who is not studying toshow himself approved (cf. 2 Timothy 2:15),cannot be asking for wisdom “in faith, nothingwavering,” as James 1:6 requires, and will not,therefore, be receiving anything from the Lord!Nevertheless, for those who desire and pray forwisdom, willingly cultivating it with God’s help,I have no doubt they will receive it.

In seeking wisdom, the following suggestionsare offered:

Know as much about God as possible. Prov-erbs 1:7 teaches, “The fear of the Lord is the be-ginning of knowledge, but fools despise wisdomand instruction.” In Psalms 111:10, it is said,“The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wis-dom; a good understanding have all those whodo His commandments.” Although the fear men-tioned in these passages is not totally unawareof the “terror of the Lord” (cf. 2 Corinthians

Page 7


5:11), contextually, the word indicates rever-ence for and respectful awe of God’s divine na-ture. What this means is that without reverencefor and awe of God we cannot know what weought to know and, further, we cannot ever hopeto properly utilize the little knowledge we dohave. For as long as I can remember, my regardfor God has always moved me to think about Hischaracteristics and attributes. Now, the more Ihave learned about Him, the more I have stoodin awe and veneration of Him. In addition, themore I have learned about Him, the closer I haveactually felt to Him. My fear of God has not justallowed me to know more about Him, it has ac-tually allowed me to know Him, that is, to havean intimate, loving relationship with Him. As aresult, loving God with all my heart, mind, soul,and strength has become the consuming passionof my life. I love Him more than my own wife,and I love her more than I do my own life. Con-sequently, I have never known greater love thanHis love for me, and, as a direct result of Hisgreat love for me, I have never loved more than Ilove Him. Although it at first seems ironic, as my“fear of God” (i.e., my reverence, veneration,and awe of God) has increased over the years, al-most without me realizing it, my “fear” of Himhas actually disappeared. How can this be? Ac-cording to the apostle John: “There is no fear inlove; but perfect love casts out fear, because fearinvolves torment. But he who fears has not beenmade perfect in love” (1 John 4:18). The rela-tionship I now have with the heavenly Father,“in Christ,” no longer involves the fear of tor-ment. In Christ, I no longer have an adversarialrelationship with God the Father. I am no longerantagonistic of His commandments, but joyfullyand enthusiastically keep them from a heartfilled with love (cf. John 14:15). All this has pro-duced in me a careful “boldness” (cf. Ephesians3:12; Hebrews 10:19; 1 John 4:17). Withoutthe remission of my sins, which has been pro-vided by the grace of God, and accomplished asa result of my faith in the blood of Christ, Iwould be absolutely terrified to go into the pres-ence of the Lord (cf. Hebrews 10:31; 2Corinthians 5:11). But now, “in Christ,” withthe fear of His wrath having been taken away, Ipossess a boldness and confidence to enter intothe very presence of God. I emphasize the ideaof “careful boldness,” because until I finish mycourse in this life, I could, through moral ne-glect, lose (cf. Hebrews 3:6,14) that whichGod’s faithfulness guarantees (cf. Philippians1:6). As I have had the opportunity to preachand teach God Almighty over the years, I havenoticed this same effect produced in others.Truly, the fear of the Lord is the beginning of

knowledge and wisdom. If, though, the onlytime we think about God is when we ask Him forwisdom, we might as well not waste our time. Iremain confident that as we continue to learnmore about God, our love for Him will only in-crease.

Know as much about God’s word as possi-ble. Because knowledge is a requirement for wis-dom, we should pray for wisdom while learningas much about God’s word as possible. In otherwords, praying for wisdom is not a substitute forBible study!

Know as much about life as possible. This isa mighty big job, and one that, more often thannot, comes with experience. The Hebrew writermakes this point when he says, “But solid foodbelongs to those who are of full age, that is,those who by reason of use have their senses ex-ercised to discern both good and evil” (Hebrews5:14). For example, if one did not know thatmost “birth control pills” actually prevent a fer-tilized egg from implanting on the wall of themother’s uterus, thereby receiving nourishment,it would be difficult to make a biblically in-formed proper decision about what method ofbirth control one might wish to use. Further-more, unless one knew that in vitro fertilizationroutinely involved the destruction of fertilizedova, it would be almost impossible to make theright decision about this procedure. But, know-ing about life is more than the accumulation offacts, it is also the cultivation of the knowledgeof how these facts affect life. This is why respectfor and consultation with our elders is so impor-tant for one seeking wisdom (cf. Leviticus19:32; Proverbs 16:31; 1 Peter 5:5). Quite sim-ply, they have seen more of life than we haveand, therefore, should be wiser than we are.

Finally, know as much about wisdom as pos-sible. As we said previously, praying for wisdomdoes not result in instant omniscience. It is un-fortunate that when many are faced with a deci-sion, they say a prayer for wisdom; then, nomatter what they decide, they assume that thisparticular decision was supplied by God. But, aswe have indicated already, wisdom does notwork this way. Wisdom is not specific answersto specific problems. Rather, wisdom is the abil-ity to discern the best decision from those thatare only better. We recognize that wisdom ap-plies general knowledge and understanding tospecific situations with excellent results. Thismeans it is a skill! Consequently, as we pray forit, we realize it grows and increases with not juststudy, but the exercise of what we have studiedand learned. Unfortunately, even a wise personsometimes makes a poor or even a bad decision.Nevertheless, trusting the Lord to give us wis-

Page 8


dom, we continue to learn as much about God,His word, life in general, and wisdom as we can.Only in this manner will we become acquaintedwith and enlightened by true, worthwhile wis-dom.

The Mistake Of Trying To Interpret Provi-dence

The Christian has the assurance of God’sspecial providence. This assurance compelledthe apostle Paul to say, “And we know that allthings work together for good to them that loveGod, to them who are the called according to Hispurpose” (Romans 8:28). And again, “If God isfor us, who can be against us?” (Romans 8:31).With this said, is it possible to know the will ofGod in and through circumstances that takeplace in this life? I believe the answer to thisquestion is an emphatic “No!” When an eventtakes place, we have no way of knowing, short ofactual inspiration, whether it falls within the de-cretive or permissive will of God. Previously,God’s decretive will was described as that whichGod desires and Himself makes happen, and Hispermissive will as something which originatesapart from His desire but that He permits be-cause of man’s free will, etc. In other words, anevent can happen because God wants it to hap-pen and causes it to happen, or it may happenfor various other reasons. Consequently, anevent cannot communicate a message apart fromspecial revelation. Additionally, we have no wayof knowing whether an event has taken place be-cause of God’s general providence, which en-compasses all creation, or as a result of Hisspecial providence, which is directed toward thechurch of Christ exclusively.

As has already been noted, Calvinists erro-neously believe that everything that happens isGod’s decretive or purposive will. Others, someof whom are Christians, believe they can actu-ally interpret God’s will (or providence) byevents that take place in their lives, or the livesof others. For instance, a good man prospers anda bad man suffers hardship. Some are convincedthat God is blessing the good man and punishingthe bad man. But is this really the case? Whathappens when a good man suffers and a badman prospers?

The Gamaliel Fallacy

If the book of Job teaches us anything, it isthat circumstances or events, apart from revela-tion, cannot convey God’s decretive will. Jobwas not suffering because he was an evil man, ashis friends supposed; he was suffering because

he was, in fact, a good man. Job’s friends, andeven Job himself, had fallen victim to what hascome to be called the “Gamaliel fallacy,” afterthe principle offered by the great Jewish teacherGamaliel, who said, “And now I say to you, keepaway from these men and let them alone; for ifthis plan or this work is of men, it will come tonothing; but if it is of God, you cannot over-throw it, lest you even be found to fight againstGod” (Acts 5:38,39). Although what Gamalielsaid is ultimately true (ultimately, in the end,God’s cause will be vindicated), in actuality, itdoes not translate into very practical advice.One must keep in mind that this is Gamaliel’sopinion and advice, not the Holy Spirit’s. For in-stance, the Roman Catholic church, with its uni-versal bishop (viz., the Pope or Papa Father), isan apostate church that has existed basically inits present form since A.D. 606. Does this meanthat God is blessing Catholicism? Of course not!But, if you were to apply Gamaliel’s advice tothe Catholic church, you could not stand or fightagainst it spiritually. Likewise, there are manyother false religions that seem to be enjoyinggreat success, especially when measured by theworld’s standards. Does this mean that they,too, are being blessed by God? Again, the an-swer is obvious. Worldly success is not necessar-ily a sign of God’s blessings. John the Baptist’sministry did not end in success according to theworld’s standards, he ended up in prison andeventually had his head cut off. But according toGod’s standards, he was completely successful.By man’s standards, the ministries of the apos-tles were miserable failures. However, we knowthey were successful in God’s sight. Therefore,from our limited and finite perspectives, wemust accept Gamaliel’s pronouncement as thefallacy it really is.

Is Private Speculation Necessarily Wrong?

Does this mean that it is inappropriate for aChristian to entertain his own private specula-tion about God’s providential care, along withthe various circumstances that seem to point inthat direction? No, I do not believe this iswrong. But I do believe that, even in one’s ownprivate speculation, one must be very carefulabout thinking a certain event definitely meansthat God has done this or that, or even that Hedesires this or that to be done. This kind of care-fulness was exhibited by Mordecai, who said toEsther, “Yet who knows whether you have cometo the kingdom for such a time as this?” (Esther4:14). Mordecai’s statement must not be con-strued as a lack of faith in God’s providentialcare for the Jews, for, in the same verse, he ad-

Page 9


vised Esther that if she did not help, “deliver-ance will arise for the Jews from another place.”It seemed to Mordecai that Esther was in theright place at the right time, and that the hand ofGod might be providentially involved in her be-ing queen; but, without special revelation, hecould not know for sure. Let us all learn to be aswise and trusting as Mordecai. Believing in thesovereignty of God, and based upon the prom-ises God had made to His people, Mordecai waswilling to trust God for deliverance, and soshould we.

Undoubtedly, we can all recount the marvel-ous things that have happened to us in our life-times which we believe were providential.However, we should be careful not to cite thesethings as proof of God’s special providence. Ourproof is found in the promises contained inGod’s word. In the case of special providence,the apostle Paul declared by inspiration, “Weknow that all things work together for good tothem that love God, to them that are called ac-cording to His purpose” (Romans 8:28). In otherwords, because of God’s special providentialcare for us, every circumstance or event that

happens to us will have either a good purpose ora good result, so long as we continue to love andobey Him. How do we know this? The Bible,God’s preceptive will, tells us so! Consequently,our faith in God, the Sovereign Ruler of all crea-tion, and His solemn promise that “all thingswork together for good to them that love God,”relieve us of the burden of trying to figure outwhether a particular event happened because ofGod’s decretive or permissive will, and directsus to a thorough study of His preceptive will,which has been revealed to us in the Bible.

As we conclude this section on the sover-eignty of God, let us think of Him as “the Lord,God Most High, the Possessor of heaven andearth” (Genesis 14:22). Let us acknowledgethat He “has established His throne in heaven,and His kingdom rules over all” (Psalm103:19). With the psalmist, let us say: “Blessthe Lord, you His angels, who excel in strength,who do His word, heeding the voice of His word.Bless the Lord, all you His hosts, you ministersof His, who do His pleasure. Bless the Lord, allHis works, in all places of His dominion. Blessthe Lord, O my soul!” (Psalm 103:20-22).

Page 10


Man’s Free Will

Calvinists give lip-service to man’s freewill, but they do not really believe in it.They say that man, in order to have free

will, needs only to voluntarily choose his acts inaccord with his own desires and motives; it mat-ters not that God, as Sovereign, has foreor-dained these desires and motives, along with thechoices themselves. Now, does this sound likefree moral agency to you? According to Calvin-ists, a person may have only one course of actionopen to him and still be free. “For example,”they say, “a man may be locked in a room, butnot want to get out. He therefore cannot get out(that is certain), but equally he does not want toget out (he is not there against his will)” (D.A.Carson, Divine Sovereignty And Human Re-sponsibility, page 207). In other words, eventhough God has foreordained every single choiceone makes, every choice is still free because Godhas also foreordained that each choice manmakes will be made voluntarily. Carl F. H.Henry, the founding editor of Christianity To-day, noted theologian, educator, lecturer, andauthor of more than twenty-five books, explains(?) it this way:

To be morally responsible man needsonly the capacity for choice, not thefreedom of contrary choice.... Humanbeings voluntarily choose to do whatthey do. The fact that God has foreor-dained human choices and that His de-cree renders human actions certain doesnot therefore negate human choice (God,Revelation And Authority, VI:84-85).As the famed Calvinist Loraine Boettner as-

serts, “God so controls the thoughts and wills ofmen that they freely [?] and willingly [?] do whatHe has planned for them to do” (op cit., page222). In an attempt to bolster his flawed theo-logy, Boettner observes, “It is very noticeable,and in a sense it is reassuring to observe the fact,that the materialistic...philosophers deny ascompletely as do Calvinists this thing that iscalled free will” (ibid.). How anyone who claimsto believe in the Bible could feel reassured be-cause materialistic philosophers had come to thesame conclusion as he is absolutely shocking tome. It is apparent that although Calvinists aredisposed to citing their “free will” shibboleths,they do not, for a moment, believe that man ac-

tually has free moral agency.

Man Possesses Free Will

There are myriad Bible passages that presentthe reception of God’s blessing or cursing ascontingent upon human choice. This is epito-mized in Deuteronomy 11:26-28, which says:“Behold, I set before you today a blessing and acurse: the blessing, if you obey the command-ments of the Lord your God which I commandyou today; and the curse, if you do not obey thecommandments of the Lord your God, but turnaside from the way which I command you today,to go after other gods which you have notknown.” When Joshua challenged the people to“choose you this day whom you will serve”(Joshua 24:15), he was addressing individualswho were free to make a moral decision. This isno place made clearer than in Matthew 23:37,where Jesus cried: “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, theone who kills the prophets and stones those whoare sent to her! How often I wanted to gatheryour children together, as a hen gathers herchicks under her wings, but you were not will-ing!” The Bible teaches conclusively and em-phatically that man has free will.

God’s Will Can Be Rejected

As the passages cited above teach, not onlydoes man possess free will, but he can actuallyexercise this free will in a way that defies God’swill. In other words, although God is SovereignRuler, He does not always get everything Hewants. To the Calvinists, such a statement is to-tally unthinkable and completely contrary totheir concept of God’s sovereignty. Even so, inIsaiah 65:12, God said, “Therefore I willnumber you for the sword, and you shall all bowdown to the slaughter; because, when I called,you did not answer; when I spoke, you did nothear, but did evil before My eyes, and chose thatin which I do not delight.” Again, in 2 Peter 3:9,it is plainly stated that God is “not willing thatany should perish but that all should come to re-pentance.” If, as the Calvinists claim, God de-crees everything that happens, and if, as theapostle Peter claims, God is not willing that anyshould perish, then all mankind will ultimately

Page 11


be saved. But even Calvinists reject the idea ofUniversalism. What, then, is their solution? Sim-ply this: They must come to understand that Cal-vinism is not just anti-scriptural, which iscertainly bad enough, but is anti-God as well.Calvin’s god (with a little “g”) is not the God(with a capital “G”) who has revealed Himself inthe Bible. Calvin’s god, apart from anything thecreature may or may not do, predestines some toeternal life and others to eternal damnation.However, the God who has revealed Himself inthe Bible actually pleads with His creatures toobey His preceptive will so they can be saved.This God, as opposed to Calvin’s god, “desiresall men to be saved and to come to the knowl-edge of the truth” (1 Timothy 2:4).

Why Does God Permit Men To Reject HisWill?

When men begin to say that God can force aman to freely do His will, they are talking mean-ingless nonsense. Citing a passage that says,“with God all things are possible” (Matthew19:26), does not provide these folks any help.The “all things” that are possible with God areactually qualified by other scriptures and thelaw of non-contradiction. For example, the Biblesays God cannot lie (cf. Titus 1:2). Therefore, itis not possible for God to lie. This means thatthe “all things” that are possible with God mustbe those things consistent with His divine na-ture. Further, God cannot make 2 + 2 = 5. Hecannot make it to be raining and not raining inthe same place at the same time. He cannot givea hydrogen atom and a helium atom the sameatomic structure. Finally, even God could notmake man free and not free at the same time inthe same way. In order for man to be free, Godhad to give him the opportunity to rebel.

But there is much more to this story. InPsalm 32:1, David says, “Blessed is he whosetransgression is forgiven, whose sin is covered.”In verse 5, he continues: “I acknowledged mysin to You, and my iniquity I have not hidden. Isaid, ‘I will confess my transgressions to theLord,’ and You forgave the iniquity of my sin.”In verses 8-9, the Lord replies: “I will instructyou and teach you in the way you should go; Iwill guide you with My eye. Do not be like thehorse or like the mule, which have no under-standing, which must be harnessed with bit andbridle, else they will not come near you.”

Why did God allow David to sin? Why didHe not simply stop David from sinning in thefirst place? The answer seems obvious: God didnot want his servants to serve Him because theyare forced to do so. He wants those who will

serve Him to do so freely, willingly accepting Hisinstructions and counsel. He wants a relation-ship with His creatures based on mutual affec-tion and love, and not because of some kind offorce. The Almighty God, if He so desired, cer-tainly had the power to bridle His creatures,forcefully manipulating their minds and heartsand turning them into robots (or mules), so thatthey are forced to do His will. But if He did this,He would not be able to achieve His purpose ofdeveloping free relationships, like the one He de-sired with David, with His creatures. He wantsall men to repent and enter a free love-relationship with Himself. If He forced them todo this, as Calvinists allege, their allegiancecould not be freely given, that is, they would nolonger be men but mules. God, who made manin His own image, wants him to be conformed tothe image of His Son (cf. Romans 8:29). Unlessman is a free moral agent, this simply cannot bedone.

What Man’s Freedom Cost God

Man’s free moral agency is a unique giftfrom God Almighty. Without it, we could not bewhat and who we are. No other earthly creaturehas been given this special freedom. Further-more, it should almost go without saying thatonly God could have made a creature with freemoral agency. Therefore, man’s free will is aconstant reminder of God’s omnipotence. Butfor many, and this includes Calvinists, the oppo-site is true. As the secular philosopher J. L.Mackie says, “There is a fundamental difficultyin the notion of an omnipotent God creating menwith free will, for if men’s wills are really freethis must mean that even God cannot controlthem, that is, that God is no longer omnipotent”(“Evil and Omnipotence,” God and Evil:Readings in the Theological Problem of Evil, ed.Nelson Pike, page 57). In his book, The Inex-haustible God, Royce Gruenler says that man’sfree will, which necessitates a future that is openand indefinite, is “logically incompatible withthe doctrine of a sovereign God” (pages 43-44).In other words, Calvinists believe that if manhas free will, then God is actually impotent. Thefallacy in all this will be more completely ex-posed in the section to follow on foreknowledge.At this point, suffice it to say that it is God’sforeknowledge which permits Him to maintaincomplete control of His world in spite of man’sfree will, because foreknowledge gives God theoption of either permitting or preventing man’splanned, free will choices, and as we pointed outin our previous discussion on God’s permissivewill, prevention is really the ultimate in control.

Page 12


Therefore, man’s free will does not renderGod impotent. Nevertheless, it does, in fact,limit Him. But if God is really limited, then howcan He continue to be omnipotent? Are not thesetwo concepts mutually exclusive? Only in themind of the determinists! As we have alreadypointed out, the “all things” that are possiblewith God are qualified by both Scripture and thelaw of non-contradiction. God can do all thingsconsistent with His nature and that are not, inand of themselves, illogical. Therefore, if God,of His own free will, chooses to create creatureswith free moral agency, and in order to do so, Hemust limit Himself, such self-limitations are nota denigration of His omnipotence, as the deter-minists think, but are, instead, a powerful dem-onstration of it, which is exactly the point I

made at the beginning of this subsection.

In order to insure man’s autonomy, God, ofHis own free will, was willing to pay a tremen-dous price. Although He did not have to do so,the Almighty God was willing to limit Himself inrelation to His creation. This gives us some ideaof just how important man is to God. Further-more, and this ought to humble us greatly, the fi-nal measure of God’s concern for man is to befound in the sacrifice of His only begotten Son.Praise God, the Sovereign Ruler, for His willing-ness to give us our freedom, even though it ulti-mately cost Him the sacrifice of His onlybegotten Son. “Alleluia! For the Lord God Om-nipotent reigns!” (Revelation 19:6).

Page 13


The Foreknowledge Of God

Psalm 147:5 says that God’s understand-ing is infinite. Infinite in this verse is theHebrew micpar and means the same thing

as it does in English, that is, “having no bounda-ries or limits.” Now, if God’s understanding hasno boundaries or limits, and understanding ispredicated on knowledge, then it follows neces-sarily that God’s knowledge has no boundariesor limitations. Such knowledge would be “un-searchable” by mere finite creatures, and this isexactly what the Bible says (cf. Romans 11:33).In other words, the Bible teaches that God“knows all things” (1 John 3:20). This kind ofknowledge is what the theologians call “omnis-cience.” By definition, omniscience or “all-knowingness” encompasses the present, thepast, and the future, and undoubtedly includesgenuine foreknowledge (by genuine, I mean thatGod actually has the ability to foreknow thefuture, contingent, free will choices of men andwomen). This is proved by many Bible passages.In the space that follows, we will notice a few ofthese.

Just before he died, Moses was told by Godof the coming apostasy of the Israelites(Deuteronomy 31:16-21). In doing so, God wasnot just declaring what He planned to do in thefuture, He was making it clear that He knewwhat human beings would be doing in the futureof their own free wills. In Acts 2:23, the apostlePeter taught that Jesus was delivered up “by thedetermined purpose and foreknowledge ofGod.” He went on to say to the Jews, “...youhave taken [Jesus] by lawless hands, have cruci-fied [Him], and put [Him] to death.” This clearlyteaches that God’s plan to deliver up His Sonwas made in view of what He foreknew the Jewsand Romans would do, that is, He knew thatgiven the right circumstances, they would causeJesus to be crucified. Again, in Romans 8:28-30and 1 Peter 1:1-2, we are told that Godforeknew certain individuals, of their own freewills, would obey the gospel and be conformedto the image of His Son, that they would becomethe “elect” in their connection with Jesus Christ.This means that God’s foreknowledge of thosewho would be conformed to the image of His Sonpredates their election and predestination. SinceGod chose them “in Christ” before the creationof the world (cf. Ephesians 1:4), it seems clear

that they and their free will actions were fore-known by God before the world began. There-fore, there is absolutely no reason for the Biblebeliever to ever doubt God’s genuine foreknow-ledge of the future, contingent, free will choicesof His creatures.

Calvinists assert that God’s foreknowledgeand man’s free will are completely irreconcil-able. Again, they are wrong! The Bible teachesthat God has foreknowledge (and we will look atsome biblical examples of these momentarily),therefore, God’s foreknowledge is a fact. Like-wise, the Bible teaches that man has free will(and we have already examined some of thesepassages), therefore, man’s free moral agency isa fact. Consequently, Calvinists, or anyone else,who claim that God’s foreknowledge and man’sfree will are incompatible are teaching thatwhich is contrary to God’s word.

A Little Simple Logic

Notwithstanding, Calvinists and other de-terminists attempt to vindicate their position byarguing as follows:

• Necessarily, whatever God foreknowscomes to passand

• God foreknew that x would come topass,therefore, it follows that

• Necessarily, x will come to pass.And so, the determinists argue, if God fore-

knows the future, then all things come to passnecessarily, and this means that man’s freemoral agency and true contingency are elimi-nated, and were never more than a non-determinist’s illusion. But, and this seems diffi-cult for some, the above reasoning embraces alogical fallacy. According to the rules of logic,the conclusion of an argument can be necessaryonly if both of the premises are necessary. But inthe above argument, only the major premise is anecessary truth. The minor premise is not a nec-essary truth because it is not necessary that Godknow x. He could have known y instead. Conse-quently, the proper conclusion to the above syl-logism is:

• Therefore, x will come to pass.Now, from the fact that God foreknows that

Page 14


x will occur, we may be sure that x will, in fact,occur; but, and this is my point, it is not neces-sary that x occur. It is, indeed, possible (becauseman is a free moral agent) that x might not oc-cur. This having been said, we do know, accord-ing to the above syllogism, that x will actuallyoccur because God foreknew it would occur. (Itis extremely unfortunate that when we begin totalk about logic some people’s eyes begin to glazeover. Many seem convinced that logic is verydifficult, but it is really not as hard as they think.Without the rules of logic, we could notunderstand anything. Without logic, God wouldbe unable to communicate His will to us. Even ifHe were to directly inspire us, we would still needto follow the rules of logic in order to understandand apply His words.) The fact that God knows Iwill act a certain way does not mean His know-ledge causes me to act this way. If, as a freemoral agent, I chose to behave differently, God’sknowledge about this behavior would also bedifferent. In other words, if God foreknew that Ishould do x, then I will do x. But, as a free moralagent, I have the power not to do x, and if I werenot to do x, then God would not have knownthat I will do x. This means that although God’sforeknowledge is chronologically prior to my ac-tion, my action is logically prior to His fore-knowledge. What this all means is that thefuture, contingent, free will choices of men andwomen are not settled by God’s foreknowledge;instead, God’s foreknowledge is settled by thereality of the future events themselves. The factthat God, from His viewpoint in eternity, seesthem “ahead of time” does not mean theseevents will happen because God sees them;rather, they are going to happen because of thegenuine free moral agency of those involved.Again, the fact that God sees them ahead of timedoes not make them happen in any causativesense.

I want you to notice that the Bible does notsay that God has the capacity to know all things,which He certainly does; instead, the argumentis that God actually “knows all things.” Now, ifGod knows all things, what is it that He does notknow? Remember, the Great Intelligence of theuniverse is writing to His intelligent creatures.Consequently, not only does He teach usthrough direct statements and approved exam-ples, but He also expects us to come to necessaryconclusions about what He has written. By di-rect statement, the Bible teaches that God“knows all things” (1 John 3:20). By directstatement, the Bible teaches that God’s under-standing is without boundaries or limits (cf.Psalm 147:5). Therefore, if God’s understand-ing is infinite, and understanding is established

through knowledge, then it follows necessarilythat God’s knowledge is also infinite. In otherwords, based on the direct statements of Scrip-ture, the only conclusion one can arrive at is thatthere is nothing God does not know and this en-compasses the then, the now, and the not yet!

Some Claim God Cannot Know The Future

Calvin’s starting point was that God’s fore-knowledge and man's free will are mutually ex-clusive. Calvin opted for God’s foreknowledge atthe expense of man’s free will. Others, while re-jecting Calvin’s false system, have believed hispremise. Consequently, they have opted forman’s free will at the expense of God’s fore-knowledge. Presently, there are New TestamentChristians who are taking this position. Givinglip-service to the omniscience of God (theyacknowledge that God knows the past andpresent perfectly), they claim that because thefuture does not yet exist, God cannot know whatdoes not yet exist, unless He, by His decretivewill, intends to bring these events to pass. Theyclaim that passages that depict God as knowingthe end from the beginning (cf. Isaiah 46:10;Romans 4:17) are really examples of God’s om-nipotence, not His foreknowledge. God, theyclaim, simply cannot know the future, contin-gent, free will choices of men and women. Thesebrethren are just as wrong as the Calvinists theycondemn. All the Bible passages that show Godforeknowing the future, contingent, free willchoices of individuals and groups (and we havementioned some of these earlier) testify to theerror these brethren espouse.

On the other hand, there are brethren whobelieve that God has the capacity to know allthings, but for reasons known only to Him, Hechooses not to know some things. Unlike thosewho say God cannot know, this group does nottake their position for philosophical reasons. In-stead, they take their position because the Bibledoes seem to be saying there are things God does(did) not know (e.g., Genesis 18:21 and 22:12),and as they are wont to say, “We all know the Bi-ble does not contradict itself.” True, the Bibledoes not contradict itself. Therefore, if the Bibleteaches that God knows all things, then pas-sages like Genesis 18 and 22 must be inter-preted in light of this truth. In fact, a funda-mental rule of Bible interpretation says that wemust understand Scripture in its normal senseunless a literal interpretation contradicts otherclear teaching found in God’s Word. Not doingthis, in my opinion, is the error one makes inthinking these passages negate the all-knowingness of God. (If you disagree with me, I

Page 15


would be very interested to know what youthink Psalm 147:5; Romans 11:33; and 1 John3:20 are saying about God's omniscience.)

Mixing Apples And Oranges

In their defense, many who take the aboveposition argue that just as God being all-powerful does not mean He has to be doingeverything He has the capacity to do, being all-knowing does not mean that God must actuallyknow everything He has the capacity to know.What to many seems like iron-clad logic is, infact, a non sequitur, that is, it is simply an argu-ment that does not logically follow the premiseor evidence. Therefore, comparing omnisciencewith omnipotence is like confusing apples andoranges. Yes, it is true that being all-powerful,definitionally, does not mean one has to be en-gaged in doing all things. On the other hand, bydefinition, knowing all things means knowing allthings. Being all-powerful infers ability only,while being all-knowing infers not just abilitybut the actual knowledge itself, which, in thecase of God, is universal in scope. In otherwords, God is not claiming that He could knowall things; He’s claiming He does know allthings! Those who wrongly believe Genesis 18and 22 to be teaching that God has chosen notto know some things are explaining away, bytheir literal interpretation of these passages, theplain teaching of those scriptures I have citedwhich clearly teach the all-knowingness of God.Evidently, they must think the passages I havecited mean something other than what they liter-ally say. But, whether one agrees with me or not,the task before us is to harmonize two seeminglycontradictory teachings—God knows all things;God does not know some things—and do it in away that does no harm to the integrity of eitherset of scriptures.

Resolving An Apparent Dilemma

Here is how I resolve what otherwise ap-pears to be a dilemma. In Genesis 18:21, we aredealing with an unusual circumstance. God,who is omnipresent, which means He is equallypresent to all of space simultaneously, has, onoccasion, entered space at specific points andbecome present in it for a specific purpose. Thetheologians call these occurrences “theopha-nies.” This seems to be the case in Genesis18:21. In verse 1 of the chapter, it says, “Thenthe Lord appeared to him by the terebinth treesof Mamre, as he was sitting in the tent door inthe heat of the day.” In verse 2, it mentions“three men.” Whether these three men are mani-

festations of the triune nature of God, orwhether the other two were angels, is not clear.What seems clear is that this is, in fact, a the-ophany. In entering the time/space continuum,God, who is infinite in His being, willingly, andsomehow, without ceasing to be who He is, al-lowed Himself to be subject to the finite. It’smind-boggling, I know. Nevertheless, this ap-pears to be the clear import of Scripture. Let usnow look at the Genesis 18:21 with my inter-pretation interjected in brackets:

I, [who have somehow subjected Myselfto the time/space continuum] will godown [not from heaven, but down theway geographically] now [not in eter-nity, but right now at this moment, sub-ject to time and space] and see [i.e.,learn experientially in time and space]whether they have done [and, more im-portantly, continue to do “now”] alto-gether according to the outcry against itthat has come to Me [in eternity, notlimited by time and space]; and if not[i.e., if they are no longer doing what Iknew they were doing before I allowedMyself to be subject to time and space],I [God subject to time and space] willknow [experientially].Notice that I have emphasized the word

“now” by putting it in bold letters. This is be-cause I believe this word to be the key to under-standing this passage. God, who knows the past,present, and future, confines His knowing to the“now” of the time/space continuum. Are wesupposed to think that the self-existent, eternal,infinite Spirit who is God did not really knoweverything that had been happening in Sodomand Gomorrah? 1 John 3:20 makes it absolutelyclear that God is greater than our heart (Heknows our heart as well as every other heart)and knows all things. Consequently, whateverGenesis 18:21 means must be understood bythe context, and the context clearly indicates atheophany. And so, the theophany must betaken into consideration when trying to under-stand this passage. When I debated a brotherwho teaches that there are some things God can-not know, he at least admitted that God knewthe past and present perfectly. Now, some arewanting me to believe that the all-knowing Goddoes not even know the past and present per-fectly. This, of course, is the only conclusion onemay come to if Genesis 18:21 is to be under-stood literally and apart from the “now” con-text. Consequently, this conclusion is not —indeed, cannot be — true.

I now call your attention to what I considerto be the more difficult passage. In Genesis

Page 16


22:12, the angel of the Lord says to Abraham,“Do not lay your hand on the lad, or do anythingto him; for now I know that you fear God, sinceyou have not withheld your son, your only son,from Me.” Although the “angel of the Lord,”who some think may be the pre-incarnate Christ,is involved in this episode, the unusual circum-stances associated with a theophany are not apart of the context. Even so, as has already beenpointed out, the Bible teaches that the self-existent, eternal, and infinite Spirit who is God“knows all things.” So, once again, citing a fun-damental principle of Bible interpretation, thecurrent passage cannot be interpreted in a waythat would negate clear and unequivocal pas-sages which teach that God knows all things.

As we think about this situation, it is inter-esting to note what the self-existent, eternal, in-finite Spirit who is God knew about Abrahambefore He ever “tested” him. In Genesis 18:18-19, the Lord said: “...since Abraham shall surelybecome a great and mighty nation, and all thenations of the earth shall be blessed in him? ForI have known him, in order that he may com-mand his children and his household after him,that they keep the way of the Lord, to do right-eousness and justice, that the Lord may bring toAbraham what He has spoken to him.” In otherwords, God knew that Abraham would pass the“tests” of faith, which included the one men-tioned in this passage. To disregard this infor-mation, as well as the truth about God’s “all-knowingness,” is to make a serious mistakewhen trying to understand this passage. Yes,taken literally, the passage does appear to beteaching that God learned something aboutAbraham that He had not previously known.But, if God really does know all things, and if Hetherefore knew Abraham would pass all “tests,”then Genesis 22:12 cannot be teaching what itseems to be teaching. I admit to feeling just a lit-tle bit uncomfortable making this kind of state-ment. Nevertheless, I am confident this is thecorrect way to view this passage. Paul was notthe only inspired writer who wrote things diffi-cult to understand, which, if we are not careful,can be twisted to teach something completelycontrary to truth. (cf. 2 Peter 3:16). Our respon-sibility is to “Be diligent to present [ourselves]

approved to God, [as workers] who [do not]need to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word oftruth” (2 Timothy 2:15). This is not alwayseasy, but if we work hard at it, then we, too, willpass the “test.”

I believe the key to understanding Genesis22:12 is to be found in places like Deuteronomy29-30, where God promises to give life or deathand blessings or cursings, depending upon one’sobedience to His Word. Do what is right and oneis blessed; do what is wrong and one is cursed.This is a principle taught many places in the Bi-ble, and although we do not expect to hear thevoice of the “angel of the Lord” today, neverthe-less, if we serve the Lord faithfully, He will blessus; if we disobey Him, He will curse us.

God is all-knowing. However, He has gra-ciously agreed to deal with us in the time/spacecontinuum. In Genesis 22:12, I have once againemphasized the word “now.” This is because Ibelieve the key to understanding this passage,like the key to understanding Genesis 18:21, isthe “now” context. In the now of Abraham'stime and space, the voice of the angel of theLord could be heard audibly, and God is ac-knowledging His blessing on or appreciation ofAbraham at a very critical time and place in his“walk of faith.” In fact, the word “know” in thispassage is sometimes translated “to recognize,admit, acknowledge, confess, declare, or tell.”So, in harmony with the rest of Scripture, andwithout doing any violence to the words of thispassage, Genesis 22:12 is not teaching that theall-knowing God of the universe did not reallyknow whether Abraham would pass this criticaltest. He is, instead, acknowledging His apprecia-tion of Abraham’s faithfulness to Him. In otherwords, He is declaring, “Abraham, I have beentesting you...and you have passed the test!”

As has been demonstrated, there is nothingin God’s word that limits His knowledge, noteven the free moral agency of man. Therefore,with the apostle Paul, we say: “Now to the Kingeternal, immortal, invisible, to God who alone iswise, be honor and glory forever and ever.Amen” (1 Timothy 1:17).

Page 17


The Five Points Examined

There are five main pillars upon which thesuperstructure of Calvinism rests. Theseare technically known as “The Five Points

of Calvinism” (these Five Points can be readilyremembered if they are associated with theacrostic T-U-L-I-P, which stands for: T, TotalDepravity; U, Unconditional Election; L, Limi-ted Atonement; I, Irresistible Grace; and P,Perseverance of the Saints). In this section, wewill make a critical examination of each of these,holding them up to the light of Scripture. Itshould be understood that the Five Points arenot random, isolated, nor independent doc-trines. Rather, they are “so inter-related thatthey form a simple, harmonious, self-consistentsystem” (Boettner, op. cit., page 59). Calvinism,although terribly flawed, is amazingly logical inits parts. If one were to concede that the firstpoint of Calvinism (viz., “Total Depravity”)were true, then all four of the following pointswould necessarily follow. Of course, the oppo-site is also true. Prove any one of the Five Pointsof Calvinism wrong and the entire system mustbe surrendered.

Total Depravity

In the Westminster Confession, the doctrineof Total Depravity is stated as follows: “Man, byhis fall into a state of sin, hath wholly lost allability of will to any spiritual good accompany-ing salvation; so as a natural man, being alto-gether averse from good, and dead in sin, is notable, by his own strength, to convert himself, orto prepare himself thereunto” (Chapter IX,Section III). For obvious reasons, many Calvin-ists call this the doctrine of “Total Inability” or,as we will see in a moment, the doctrine of“Original Sin.” In his book, The Bondage of theWill, which argues that man’s will is bound as aresult of the fall of man and its effect, Martin Lu-ther said that man is born with a “total inabilityto will good” (Page 199). According to this posi-tion, all mankind is totally depraved. The es-sence of this false doctrine is the total inabilityof man to do anything truly good in God’s sight,especially the inability to do anything toward re-ceiving salvation. Again, this total depravity isnot acquired, as non-determinists teach, but in-nate. Therefore, “to become sinful, men do not

wait until the age of accountable actions arrive.Rather, they are apostates from the womb”(Boettner, op. cit., page 66).

Although the doctrine of Total Depravity iscrucial to all forms of determinism, whetherAugustinian, Lutheran, or Calvinistic, it is notreally as important to the general system of Cal-vinism as it is to the Five Points. As we observedpreviously, if the doctrine of Total Depravity isdefeated, all of the other Points are defeated.Nevertheless, the more important concept toCalvinism is the Sovereign's “Eternal Decree.” Inother words, contrary to what Calvinists want usto believe, Calvinism does not have as its “start-ing point the fact that all mankind sinned inAdam” (ibid., page 61). Calvinism starts withthe Eternal Decree, which the Westminster Con-fession explains thus: “God from all eternity didby the most wise and holy counsel of His ownwill, freely and unchangeably ordain whatsoevercomes to pass” (quoted in Boettner, op. cit., page13). In other words, the essence of Calvinism isits doctrine of Predestination. About this, Calvinsaid: “Predestination we call the eternal decreeof God, by which He has determined in Himself,what He would have to become of every individ-ual of mankind. For they are not all created witha similar destiny; but eternal life is foreordainedfor some and eternal death for others. Everyman, therefore, being created for one or theother of these ends, we say is predestined eitherto life or to death” (Institutes, Book III, ChapterXXI, Section 5). Therefore, the supposed bond-age of man’s will is the direct result of an allegedEternal Decree, and only secondarily the resultof an argument for Total Depravity. This pointwas made earlier in the sections on sovereigntyand free will, and I do not intend to rehash ithere. I mention it only because the problem ofTotal Depravity causes some real sticky prob-lems for determinists, particularly when the sal-vation/damnation of infants is raised. TheAugustinians handle it one way, and the Calvin-ists handle it another. The way the Calvinistsdeal with the problem proves that Calvinismdoes not begin with the doctrine of Original Sin.

The Thorny Issue Of Infant Salvation

In formulating the doctrine of Original Sin,

Page 18


Augustine taught that, since the fall, all men areborn totally depraved. According to him, a childwho died before reaching the age of accountabil-ity was lost because of the “sinful nature” he in-herited from Adam. Believing, as he did, in theidea of baptismal regeneration, Augustine be-lieved only a “baptized” infant could be saved.He said, “As nothing else is done for children inbaptism but their being incorporated into thechurch, that is, connected with the body andmembers of Christ, it follows that when this isnot done for them they belong to perdition” (Onthe Merits and Forgiveness of Sins, A.D. 417).Thus, the practice of infant baptism was begun.Roman Catholicism, which proudly claimsAugustine as its own, has been instrumental inkeeping this erroneous doctrine alive downthrough the centuries. Of course, the idea of in-fants being eternally lost in hell was so repug-nant to most people that it was eventually“determined” by the Roman Catholic Churchthat unbaptized infants did not really go to hellat all. Instead, they went to a special place called“Limbo,” which was not heaven, but it certainlywas not hell either. In this way, when it came tothe subject of dear, precious infants dying andgoing to hell, the shocking and horrifying conse-quence of Total Depravity was lightened some-what by the doctrine of Limbo, which was nevermore than the figment of some Catholic cleric’simagination.

On the other hand, Calvinists “solved” thisproblem by appealing to the doctrine of Predesti-nation. Yes, they said, infants inherit Adam’ssin all right, but if God has predestined or eter-nally decreed that an infant would be saved, andthis apart from anything the infant would orwould not do, then the infant would be saved bythe same unmerited grace that saves an adult.Remember, unlike all determinists, Calvinistsbelieve that all men, apart from anything theywill or will not do, are predestined or foreor-dained to be eternally saved or eternally lost.Speaking to this, Dr. Benjamin B. Warfield said:

Their destiny is determined irrespectiveof their choice, by an unconditional de-cree of God, suspended for its executionon no act of their own; and their salva-tion is wrought by an unconditional ap-plication of the grace of Christ to theirsouls, through the immediate and irre-sistible operation of the Holy Spirit priorto and apart from any action of theirown proper wills...This is but to say thatthey are unconditionally predestinatedto salvation from the foundation of theworld (Two Studies in the History ofDoctrine, page 230).

The Westminster Confession says, “Elect in-fants, dying in infancy, are regenerated andsaved by Christ” (Chapter X, Section 3). Thisleft the impression with some that there are non-elect infants, who, dying in infancy, are lost, andthat the Presbyterian Church teaches this astheir doctrine. In denying this, some have said:“The history of the phrase ‘Elect infants dying ininfancy’ makes clear that the contrast impliedwas not between ‘elect infants dying in infancy’and ‘non-elect infants dying in infancy,’ butrather between ‘elect infants dying in infancy’and ‘elect infants living to grow up’” (Dr. S. G.Craig, Christianity Today, January 1931, page14). In order to correct any misunderstanding,in 1903, the Presbyterian Church in the U. S. A.adopted a Declaratory Statement which reads asfollows:

With reference to Chapter X, Section 3,of the Confession of Faith, that it is notto be regarded as teaching that any whodie in infancy are lost. We believe thatall dying in infancy are included in theelection of grace, and are regeneratedand saved by Christ through the Spirit,who works when and where and how Hepleases.Calvin's view of this is explained by Dr. R. A.

Webb in the following paragraph:Calvin teaches that all the reprobate‘procure’ — that is his own word —their own personal and conscious acts of‘impiety,’ ‘wickedness,’ and ‘rebellion.’Now reprobate infants, though guilty oforiginal sin and under condemnation,cannot, while they are infants, thus‘procure’ their own destruction by theirpersonal acts of impiety, wickedness,and rebellion. They must, therefore, liveto the years of moral responsibility in or-der to perpetrate the acts of impurity,wickedness, and rebellion, which Calvindefines as the mode through which theyprocure their destruction...Conse-quently, [Calvin’s] own reasoning com-pels him to hold (to be consistent withhimself), that no reprobate child can diein infancy; but all must live to the age ofmoral accountability, and translateoriginal sin into actual sin (Calvin Me-morial Addresses, page 112).So, there you have it, any child who dies in

infancy is saved! With this, Calvinists avoid theheart-rending idea of little babies dying in sinand going to hell. Therefore, Total Depravity isreally not the starting point for Calvinism. How-ever, it is now time to turn our attention to acritical examination of the doctrine of Total De-

Page 19


pravity.

Total Depravity

The Doctrine Stated And Refuted

The doctrine stated: Calvin, as had Augus-tine and Luther before him, argued that all man-kind sinned in Adam. In one of their catechismsit is stated like this: “All mankind...sinned inhim [Adam], and fell with him in that first trans-gression... The sinfulness of that estate where-into man fell, consisteth in the guilt of Adam’sfirst sin” (The Larger Catechism, Questions 22,25).

The doctrine refuted: But, the Bible teachesthat everyone bears the guilt of his own sins, notthe sin of Adam:

The soul who sins shall die. The sonshall not bear the guilt of the father, northe father bear the guilt of the son. Therighteousness of the righteous shall beupon himself, and the wickedness of thewicked shall be upon himself (Ezekiel18:20).The Bible makes it clear that one obeys the

gospel in order to have his own sins blotted out,not the sin of Adam, “Repent therefore and beconverted, that your sins may be blotted out”(Acts 3:19). Furthermore, when we all “appearbefore the judgment seat of Christ,” we will givean answer for what we have done in the flesh,not what Adam did (cf. 2 Corinthians 5:10). Fi-nally, it is our own sins, not Adam’s, whichseparate us from God (cf. Isaiah 59:1-2).

The doctrine stated: “Fallen man...lacks thepower of spiritual discernment. His reason orunderstanding is blinded, and the taste and feel-ings are perverted” (Boettner, op. cit., page 64).Denying that man has free will, and affirmingthat he cannot, without having been predestinedby God, choose to do good or evil, Loraine Boett-ner went on to say:

Hence we deny the existence in man of apower which may act either way, on thelogical ground that both virtue and vicecannot come out of a moral condition ofthe agent... He is incapable of under-standing, and much less of doing, thethings of God (ibid., page 65,67)The argument is that unregenerate man is

“dead in sin,” and like anyone who is physicallydead is unable to perform anything physical, thespiritually dead man is completely unable to per-form anything spiritually.

The doctrine refuted: Yes, the Bible teachesthat before we are regenerated, born again,raised, or made alive, we are “dead in trespasses

and sins” (Ephesians 2:1). But the Bible just asclearly teaches that the unregenerate man canindeed “obey from the heart” the form of doc-trine that he has been taught, that is, the gospel(cf. Romans 6:17). In Colossians 2:12-13, theapostle Paul said it this way:

Buried with Him in baptism, in whichyou also were raised with Him throughfaith in the working of God, who raisedHim from the dead. And you, being deadin your trespasses and the uncircumci-sion of your flesh, He has made alive to-gether with Him, having forgiven you alltrespasses.Faith, of course, comes by hearing the gos-

pel (cf. Romans 10:17). Then having heard thegospel, one must:

• believe it (cf. Mark 16:16),• repent of his sins (cf. Acts 17:30), and• confess with his mouth that he believes

Jesus is Christ (cf. Acts 8:37; Romans10:10).

But in doing all this, one has done thatwhich the Calvinists teach an unregenerate mancannot do. That baptism is clearly under discus-sion in Colossians 2:12-13 cannot be denied.That this passage teaches that one is not“raised” (verse 12) or “made alive” (verse 13)until he has submitted to baptism also cannot bedenied. That the expressions “raised” and“made alive” refer to being regenerated shouldbe just as clear. In fact, there seems little doubtthat the “washing of regeneration” mentioned inTitus 3:5 is referring to baptism. The fact thatone could be doing something “through faith,”as Colossians 2:12 clearly teaches, before beingregenerated flies in the face of Calvinist claims.This, no doubt, is why Calvinists deny that wa-ter baptism has anything to do with being regen-erated or born again.

The doctrine stated: Speaking of the “depthof man’s corruption,” Boettner argues: “It iswholly beyond [man’s] own power to cleansehimself. His only hope of an amendment of lifelies accordingly in a change of heart, whichchange is brought about by the sovereign re-creative power of the Holy Spirit who workswhen and where and how He pleases” (op. cit.,page 68). Without this direct operation of theHoly Spirit, man “cannot be convinced of thetruth of the Gospel by any amount of externaltestimony” (ibid.).

The doctrine refuted: The “gift” or “renew-ing” of the Holy Spirit comes after water baptism(cf. Acts 2:38; Titus 3:5), which, again, goesagainst the theological grain of Calvinism. Fur-thermore, the Bible says the Holy Spirit is givento those who “obey” the Lord (Acts 5:32), some-

Page 20


thing the Calvinists say cannot occur without adirect operation of the Holy Spirit. Therefore, itshould be clear that what Calvinists teach aboutTotal Depravity is totally false.

Unconditional Election

If the doctrine of Total Depravity be admit-ted, the doctrine of Unconditional Election nec-essarily follows. Of course, we no more admitthe doctrine of Unconditional Election than wedo that of Total Depravity. In fact, by their ownadmission, which says that if the doctrine of To-tal Depravity be disproved, all the other FivePoints crumble, we have already proven Calvin-ism to be a reprobate system. Nevertheless, wenow proceed to demonstrate the total inconsis-tency of any and all parts of Calvinism with thetruths taught in God's word.


The doctrine stated: If man is born totally de-praved and does not have free will, which iswhat Calvinists clearly teach, then he does nothave the ability to do those things God has com-manded him to do. Therefore, if a man is goingto be saved, God, totally independent of anyforeknown choices man will make, chooses(elects) him to salvation. This means, “A man isnot saved because he believes in Christ; he be-lieves in Christ because he is saved” (Boettner,op. cit., page 101). In other words, “The elect ofGod are chosen by Him to be His children, in or-der that they might be made to believe, not be-cause He foresaw that they would believe”(ibid.). Incidentally, this also was the view es-poused by Augustine and Luther. Accordingly:

Foreordination in general cannot rest onforeknowledge; for only that which iscertain can be foreknown, and only thatwhich is predetermined can be certain...God foreknows only because He has pre-determined. His fore-knowledge is but atranscript of His will as for what shallcome to pass in the future... His fore-knowledge of what is yet to be, whetherit be in regard to the world as a whole orin regard to the detailed life of every in-dividual, rests upon His pre-arrangedplan (ibid., page 99).The doctrine refuted: First of all, the doctrine

of Unconditional Election was defeated whenTotal Depravity was demonstrated to be false.Second, it is clear that Calvinists do not believeGod actually has foreknowledge (viz., pre-science). According to them, God “foreknows”what is going to happen because He has deter-

mined it will happen. We would be fools to denythe reality of this statement. This kind of state-ment is what the logicians call a tautology, thatis, a needless repetition that cannot be anythingother than logically true. For example, to saythat God has predestined whatever is going tohappen, therefore, He foreknows whatever is go-ing to happen is similar to saying, “God knowsHe is going to do something, therefore, Heknows He is going to do something.” Such wouldbe needless and foolish repetition. Nevertheless,this is how Calvinists interpret all references toGod’s foreknowledge.

Although it is true that there are passagesthat declare God can speak of future events asdefinite because of His decretive will (cf. Isaiah46:10), this is not the way foreknowledge isusually used in the Scriptures. Furthermore, it isironic that one of the most favorite passages ofthe Calvinists states unequivocally that God’spredestination of certain future events was de-pendent upon His foreknowledge, and not theother way around, as they claim. In Romans8:29-30, the apostle Paul says:

For whom He foreknew, He also predes-tined to be conformed to the image ofHis Son, that He might be the firstbornamong many brethren. Moreover whomHe predestined, these He also called;whom He called, these He also justified;and whom He justified, these He alsoglorified.Now, there may be legitimate disagreement

with reference to all the ramifications of thispassage, but there seems to be no legitimate rea-son to reject the idea conveyed here that God’spredestination was dependent upon actual fore-knowledge. It is not insignificant that the apos-tle Peter, under the same inspiration that guidedthe apostle Paul, makes precisely the same pointwhen he mentioned those who were “elect ac-cording to the foreknowledge of God the Father,in sanctification of the Spirit, for obedience andsprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ” (1 Peter1:2). We can find no hint in the Scriptures, oramong the so-called “Church Fathers” beforeAugustine, that foreknowledge, which in theGreek is proginsko, was used in any way otherthan to mean “knowledge in advance.” In otherwords, the Bible teaches that God’s “knowing inadvance” allowed Him to choose, predestinateor elect those who would be saved in connectionwith His Son Jesus, that is, those who would, oftheir own free wills, be “conformed to the imageof His Son” (Romans 8:29).

God indeed has foreknowledge, even of thefuture, contingent, free will choices of men andwomen. This allows Him to choose, foreordain,

Page 21


predestine, or elect individuals without violatingtheir free wills. This view of foreknowledgeagrees perfectly with Acts 2:23, which says,“Him [Jesus Christ], being delivered by the de-termined purpose and foreknowledge of God[the Father], you have taken by lawless hands,have crucified, and put to death.” This meansthat the Father designed His plan to deliver upHis Son with a view as to what the Jews and Ro-mans would do — that is, if given the opportu-nity, they would crucify Him. If this is not whatthis passage is teaching, then it is reduced to aneedless tautology that says, “God determinedto offer up His Son, therefore, He knew Hewould offer up His Son.”

The doctrine stated: Calvinists teach thatGod’s plan not only deals with mankind in toto,but that He also has a plan for particular indi-viduals whom He unconditionally elects to sal-vation and eternal life. As proof, they citepassages like 2 Thessalonians 2:13, which says,“But we are bound to give thanks to God alwaysfor you, brethren beloved by the Lord, becauseGod from the beginning chose you for salvationthrough sanctification by the Spirit and belief inthe truth,” and Acts 13:48, which says: “Nowwhen the Gentiles heard this, they were glad andglorified the word of the Lord. And as many ashad been appointed to eternal life believed.”

The doctrine refuted: Calvinists teach the un-conditional election of particular individuals toeternal salvation. As a result, some have thoughtthat in rejecting Calvinism they must deny theelection of particular individuals. I believe thisto be a serious mistake in that it makes Calvin-ism more difficult to refute, and, even more im-portant, it appears to be a denial of what theScriptures teach on this subject. The problemwith Unconditional Election is not that it dealswith particular individuals, but that is allegesthese individuals are elected unconditionally.This last point, the Bible clearly denies. Indi-viduals are elected, predestinated, or foreor-dained, and these are all scriptural terms, toeternal salvation based upon God's foreknow-ledge of their free will choices to “obey the gos-pel,” thus being “conformed to the image of HisSon” (cf. Romans 8:29-30; 1 Peter 1:2). Thisdoes not, as Calvinists claim, make man’s willsovereign. It was God, of His own free will, whodecided to extend His plan of salvation to man.Therefore, even though His foreknowledge in-formed Him there would be those who would beconformed to the image of His Son and, there-fore, be saved, it was entirely up to Him whetherHe tendered the plan. Without God’s plan, mancould have done nothing to effect his own salva-tion. Therefore, in one sense, we are saved by

God’s grace and not our works. This is preciselywhat Paul was talking about in Ephesians 2:4-10, where he says:

But God, who is rich in mercy, becauseof His great love with which He lovedus, even when we were dead in tres-passes, made us alive together withChrist (by grace you have been saved),and raised us up together, and made ussit together in the heavenly places inChrist Jesus, that in the ages to come Hemight show the exceeding riches of Hisgrace in His kindness toward us inChrist Jesus. For by grace you have beensaved through faith, and that not ofyourselves; it is the gift of God, not ofworks, lest anyone should boast. For weare His workmanship, created in ChristJesus for good works, which God pre-pared beforehand that we should walkin them.Salvation, then, is an undeserved, unmer-

ited gift from God, for this is the meaning of theword “grace.”

But in another sense, and this because manhas free will, salvation is something man mustwork out for himself. About this, the apostlePaul said, “Therefore, my beloved, as you havealways obeyed, not as in my presence only, butnow much more in my absence, work out yourown salvation with fear and trembling”(Philippians 2:12). Elsewhere, the apostle Petersaid, “Save yourselves from this crooked genera-tion” (Acts 2:40, ASV). In these passages, theBible teaches that a man, of his own free will,must, in order to be saved, respond, and con-tinue to respond, to the demands of God’s pre-ceptive will. As such, faith and works worktogether to produce salvation (cf. James 2:14-26). Man working out his own salvation andthereby saving himself does not mean, as Calvin-ists erroneously think, that God is forced to giveup His sovereignty. God forbid! In the verse im-mediately following the command for Christiansto work out their own salvation, Paul said, “forit is God who works in you both to will and to dofor His good pleasure” (Philippians 2:13). Inother words, just because God grants man freewill does not mean He has relinquished controlof the scheme of redemption. This is further il-lustrated by Paul's prayer for the Christians atEphesus, in which he asked God to grant them,“according to the riches of His glory, to bestrengthened with might through His Spirit inthe inner man” (Ephesians 3:16). The “gift” ofthe Holy Spirit to obedient believers (cf. Acts2:28; 5:32) functions as God’s “guarantee”that He is still in control of man’s redemption (2

Page 22


Corinthians 5:5), which, in turn, causes us to beconfident that He is able to finish the work Hehas started in us right up to the day of JesusChrist (cf. Philippians 1:6). Consequently, “weknow that all things work together for good tothose who love God, to those who are the calledaccording to His purpose” (Romans 8:28).

The Scheme of Redemption was “predes-tined according to the purpose of Him whoworks all things according to the counsel of Hiswill” (Ephesians 1:11). Therefore, it was not aplan that would or could fail. Even so, the planwould be no small undertaking. It would ulti-mately take the sacrifice of the heavenly Father’sonly begotten Son (cf. John 3:16-18), the divineLogos (cf. John 1:1), who would sooner or laterhave to leave heaven, take upon Himself themantle of flesh (cf. John 1:14), and finally shedHis blood on the cruel cross of Calvary for the re-mission of our sins (cf. Matthew 26:28). Assuch, this was not simply a plan, it was, instead,the plan! It was the plan that would work be-cause God’s foreknowledge would allow Him tonot just design a plan that could, under certaincircumstances, work, but it would also allowHim to carry out this plan with absolutely im-peccable precision (please consider what isactually taught in Acts 2:23). As the result ofthis perfect plan, God would be able to “bringmany sons unto glory” (Hebrews 2:9-10). These“many sons” were foreknown by the Father(Romans 8:29), and this allowed him to designand put in motion a plan that would ultimatelyend in their glorification with Jesus in heaven(cf. Romans 8:30). Hence, in the mind of God,and this is a mind that knows the future, contin-gent, free will choices of men and women, theScheme of Redemption is a “done deal.”

According to Strong’s Greek and HebrewLexicon, the Greek word proorizo, translated inthe KJV as “predestinate,” means to “predeter-mine,” “decide beforehand,” or “foreordain.”As already noted, this does not mean that God ineternity made a choice of those He would saveindependent of anything they would do of theirown free wills. Rather, God ordained or decreedin eternity (i.e., He predestined) that those whowere going to be saved would have to be “con-formed to the image of His Son” (Romans 8:29).This means that God did not choose individualsto be saved unconditionally, as Calvinists teach.On the contrary, based upon His foreknowledgeof the future, contingent, free will choices of Hiscreatures, God predestined (i.e., determined be-forehand) those who would be saved condition-ally (the condition would be their free willconformity to the image of God’s Son). This iswhat the apostle Paul was referring to when he

wrote: “...just as He [the Father] chose us in Him[Jesus Christ] before the foundation of theworld, that we should be holy and withoutblame before Him in love, having predestined usto adoption as sons by Jesus Christ to Himself,according to the good pleasure of His will”(Ephesians 1:4-5).

In the context of 2 Timothy 2:19, the apos-tle Paul says that although the faith of some hadbeen overthrown by false teachers, “Neverthe-less the solid foundation of God stands, havingthis seal: ‘The Lord knows those who are His,’and, ‘Let everyone who names the name ofChrist depart from iniquity.’” This is not justtrue now, but we are assured that even in eter-nity the Lord knew those who were His (cf.Ephesians 1:4). Further, He knows now, just asHe did in eternity, who will eventually be glori-fied in heaven (cf. Romans 8:30). Is God sover-eign? Yes. Is the Scheme of Redemption Hisplan? Yes. Is He continuing to work this plan?Yes. Does man have free will? Yes. Does Godknow the future, contingent, free will choices ofmen and women? Yes. The plan and its result(i.e., the bringing of many sons to glory) is cer-tain not because God has predestined thesemany sons to salvation “without any foresight offaith or good works, or perseverance ...or anyother thing in the creature, as conditions, orcauses moving Him thereunto” (The West-minster Confession, Chapter III, Section 3), butby God's “determined counsel and foreknow-ledge” (cf. Acts 2:23). Even so, as free will crea-tures, we must be “even more diligent to make[our] call and election sure, for if [we] do thesethings [we] will never stumble” (2 Peter 1:10).Once again, Calvinism has shown itself to be ser-iously flawed theology.

Limited Atonement

Did Jesus offer Himself as a sacrifice for thewhole human race, or did He die only for theelect? Calvinists teach that the Lord died for theelect only. This doctrine necessarily trails Un-conditional Election. Therefore, it is alreadydemonstrated to be false. Nevertheless, we willnow proceed to examine the doctrine from a bib-lical perspective.


The doctrine stated: The Westminster Confes-sion says:

...Wherefore they who are elected beingfallen in Adam, are redeemed in Christ,are effectually called unto faith in Christby His Spirit working in due season; are

Page 23


justified, adopted, sanctified, and keptby His power through faith unto salva-tion. Neither are any other redeemed byChrist, effectually called, justified, a-dopted, sanctified, and saved, but theelect only (Chapter III, Section 6).About this, Boettner says:If from eternity God has planned to saveone portion of the human race and notanother, it seems to be a contradictionto say that His work has equal referenceto both portions, or that He sent His Sonto die for those whom He had predeter-mined not to save, as truly as, and in thesame sense that He was sent to die forthose whom He had chosen for salvation(op. cit., page 151).The doctrine refuted: “For God so loved the

world that He gave His only begotten Son, thatwhoever believes in Him should not perish buthave everlasting life” (John 3:16). Again, “Forthe love of Christ compels us, because we judgethus: that if One died for all, then all died; andHe died for all, that those who live should live nolonger for themselves, but for Him who died forthem and rose again” [emphasis mine, AT] (2Corinthians 5:14-15). Now, as if these two pas-sages were not enough to refute the idea of aLimited Atonement, the Bible teaches unequivo-cally that it is God’s will that all men come to theknowledge of the truth and be saved (cf. 1Timothy 2:4). In 2 Peter 3:9, He is described asbeing “longsuffering toward us, not willing thatany should perish but that all should come to re-pentance.” These passages ought to be sufficientto demonstrate the error of Calvinism.

Irresistible Grace

If man is totally depraved and in this condi-tion unable to do what is right, if he is uncondi-tionally elected by God to salvation, and ifChrist died only for the elect, then man, if he isto be saved, must be saved by Irresistible Grace.This is the logical progression exhibited in Cal-vinism. The problem with Calvinism is that itstarts in the wrong place (viz., the Eternal De-cree) and then proceeds to logically end up in allthe wrong places (i.e., the Five Points of Calvin-ism). In the space that follows, we will examineand then refute the already disproved doctrineof Irresistible Grace.


The doctrine stated: In pontificating this doc-trine, the Westminster Confession says:

This effectual call [to salvation] is of

God’s free and special grace alone, notfrom any thing at all foreseen in man,who is altogether passive therein, until,being quickened and renewed by theHoly Spirit, he is thereby enabled to an-swer this call, and to embrace the graceoffered and conveyed by it (Chapter X,Section 1 and 2).In his book The Sovereignty of Grace, Arthur

C. Custance elaborates:The only defense against Synergism[i.e., the idea that man works with Godto some degree in coming to salvation] isan unqualified Calvinism ascribing allthe glory to God by insisting upon thetotal spiritual impotence of man, anelection based solely upon the goodpleasure of God, an Atonement intendedonly for the elect though sufficient forall men, a grace that can neither be re-sisted nor earned, and a security for thebeliever that is as permanent as GodHimself (page 364).Therefore, it is clear Calvinists believe that

God’s saving grace cannot be resisted and is,therefore, irresistible. It is clear they believe thatif grace can be resisted, then this “places God inthe unworthy position of being dependent uponHis creatures” (Lewis S. Chafer, SystematicTheology, 1:230). If grace can be resisted, thenCalvinists believe this would mean God is nolonger Sovereign.

The doctrine refuted: “The Lord is not slackconcerning His promise, as some count slack-ness, but is longsuffering toward us, not willingthat any should perish but that all should cometo repentance” [italics mine, AT] (2 Peter 3:9).“Then Peter opened his mouth and said: In truthI perceive that God shows no partiality. But inevery nation whoever fears Him and worksrighteousness is accepted by Him'” [italics mine,AT] (Acts 10:34-35). Would the God identifiedin these scriptures choose some to be savedapart from anything they would do of their ownfree wills, and then irresistibly bestow (force)His grace upon them so that they will be savedeven when they might not want to be? Nothardly! Furthermore, the necessary inference of1 Thessalonians 5:19 is that the Spirit of Godcan be quenched. This cannot mean that theHoly Spirit Himself can be extinguished. Rather,it means that the influence the Holy Spirit exertsand urges upon us can be suppressed or stifled.Therefore, contrary to Calvinist doctrine, the Bi-ble teaches that the God who wills (wants or de-sires) that all men come to the knowledge of thetruth and be saved (cf. 1 Timothy 2:4), sendsHis Spirit into the world to convict men of their

Page 24


sins (cf. John 16:8), but that they can still, oftheir own free wills, reject His plan for them (cf.Luke 7:30). In other words, the Bible teachesthe Holy Spirit can be resisted: “You stiffneckedand uncircumcised in heart and ears! You al-ways resist the Holy Spirit; as your fathers did,so do you” (Acts 7:51).

As far as anyone knows, the first theologianto teach that God’s will is always done and isnever impeded by the will of any creature wasAugustine (A.D. 354-430). Much later, the Re-formers (viz., Luther, Calvin et al.) continued totinker with Augustine’s idea, rejecting somethings here, modifying other things there, butgenerally refining it into a grand theologicalscheme. Calvin, of course, was the popular sys-tematizer of that which now wears his name. To-day, millions upon millions of religious peopleare held captive by the dogma of this false sys-tem. Even New Testament Christians have notbeen immune. Over the years, many have gottencaught up in the tentacles of Calvin’s insidioussystem. Others, rightfully rejecting the Calvin-ism, have, nevertheless, espoused equally falseideas in their efforts to counter it. The Christianmust always be very careful (cf. Ephesians5:15). Those of us who think we are standing onthe truth of God’s word must be careful “lest wefall” also (1 Corinthians 10:12). This warning isnever more important than when we are stand-ing against the “wiles of the devil.” If we fail toput on the “whole armor of God,” we can be de-stroyed (cf. Ephesians 6:10-18). We must al-ways fortify our defenses with book, chapter,and verse (cf. 1 Peter 4:11).

Calvinists argue that in order for God to beSovereign, He cannot be limited in what Hewould do by the pitiably insignificant wills ofHis finite creatures. In a sense, God is limited.The Bible says God “cannot lie” (Titus 1:2). Inother words, “it is impossible for God to lie”(Hebrews 6:18). Nevertheless, this in no way af-fects His sovereignty. Even Calvinists wouldhave to agree with this. Why? Because, theyknow that God’s sovereignty, power, might,rule, et cetera, is not affected by self-limitations.God cannot lie because it is inconsistent withHis nature, a nature that includes holiness, jus-tice, righteousness, to name but a few. There-fore, things that are impossible with God be-cause of who He is, do not mitigate either His Al-mightiness or Sovereignty. As we stated in thesection on the Sovereignty of God, the key toSovereignty is not causation, as the Calvinistsbelieve, but control. God’s permissive will al-lows Him the right to intervene in the decision-making process if His purposes demand it. Al-though He does not do this very often, allowing

man, in most cases, to go his own way, neverthe-less, He can and does intervene if necessary.This prerogative allows Him to exercise ultimatecontrol over the life of every man and woman.By deciding of His own free will to make a crea-ture who would himself possess free will, Godagreed to limit Himself. This self-limitation doesnot destroy nor degrade His Sovereignty, regard-less of what Calvinists think. Even so, it is justhere that we must be very careful. The conceptof self-limitation does not apply to the being ofGod, but only His actions. When it comes towho, what, and that God is, God cannot be any-thing other than who He is, that is, when Godsaid to Moses, “I Am Who I Am” (Exodus 3:14),He was saying He was, is, and always will bewho He is! Jesus, in addition to being a man, wasalso the “I Am” (John 8:58). Therefore, in takingupon Himself flesh, He did not quit being whoHe is! It was only in this sense that it could besaid about Him that He “is the same yesterday,today, and forever” (Hebrews 13:8). Therefore,by His own definition of who, what, and that Heis, God, as Deity, can never be anything otherthan who, what, and that He is. Therefore, Hecannot limit or change His being, nor can Helimit Himself by refusing to do something Hisnature requires. For example, God, although Heis all-powerful, could not have saved man anynumber of ways. If He simply overlooked sinand forgave man, He would not be just, for jus-tice demands that every sin receive a just recom-pense (cf. Hebrews 2:2; Galatians 6:7-8).Therefore, in order for God to extend His mercyto man without violating His own just nature,He sent His Son to pay the price for our sins onthe cruel cross of Calvary (consider Romans3:21-26, particularly verse 26). Without Christpaying the full price of our sins, reaping what Hehad not sown, God could not have saved us, forin doing so, He would have violated His own na-ture, which, when it comes to God, is impossi-ble.

God can only limit Himself by choosing notto do those thing which are not required by Hisnature. And since His nature does not requireHim to be the direct cause of everything,whether natural events or human actions, He isfree to limit Himself with respect to these. With-out this ability, you and I would not exist as wedo, and even if we did, we could not be savedfrom our own sinfulness. Thank God we serve aSovereign Ruler who can and has limited Him-self.

The Perseverance Of The Saints

Like the others, this point does not stand

Page 25


alone, but follows logically the other four pointsof Calvinism.


The doctrine stated: “They whom God hathaccepted in His Beloved, effectually called andsanctified by His Spirit, can neither totally norfinally fall away from the state of grace; but shallcertainly persevere therein to the end, and beeternally saved” (Westminster Confession, Chap-ter XVII, Section 1). As Boettner says, “If Godhas chosen men absolutely and unconditionallyto eternal life, and if the Spirit effectively appliesto them the benefits of redemption, the inescap-able conclusion is that these persons shall besaved” (op. cit., 182). He elaborates further:

Though floods of error deluge the land,though Satan raise all the powers ofearth and all the iniquities of their ownhearts against them, they shall neverfail; but, persevering to the end, theyshall inherit those mansions which havebeen prepared for them from the foun-dation of the world. The saints inheaven are happier but no more securethan are true believers here in thisworld” (ibid., 182-183).The doctrine refuted: Becoming a Christian is

the most important decision one can make.When we obeyed the gospel, Jesus Christ becamethe absolute Lord of our lives. As a result, ourpast sins were graciously washed away by ourLord’s precious blood, and we have been spiritu-ally born again. There is, therefore, a crown of“glory” or “righteousness” now awaiting us inheaven (cf. 1 Peter 5:4; 2 Timothy 4:8). Noth-ing, nor no one, can take away from us the salva-tion we now possess in connection with ChristJesus. The apostle Paul, in Roman 8:35-39,drives this point home:

Who shall separate us from the love ofChrist? Shall tribulation, or distress, orpersecution, or famine, or nakedness, orperil, or sword? As it is written: ‘ForYour sake we are killed all day long; Weare accounted as sheep for the slaugh-ter.’ Yet in all these things we are morethan conquerors through Him who lovedus. For I am persuaded that neitherdeath nor life, nor angels nor principali-ties nor powers, nor things present northings to come, nor height nor depth,nor any other created thing, shall beable to separate us from the love of Godwhich is in Christ Jesus our Lord.In other words, because we are now “in

Christ Jesus,” there is no longer any condemna-

tion (cf. Romans 8:1). God, who is all-powerful,cannot fail to provide the heavenly home He haspromised to all those who exercise trust andfaith in His Son Jesus Christ (cf. 2 Timothy1:12).

Although God’s omnipotence effectively as-sures our salvation, the fact remains that we canlive our lives here on this earth in such a way asto lose that which God’s faithfulness guaran-tees. For example, in Revelation 2:10, the Lordassures a “crown of life” only to those who re-main “faithful unto death.” In 1 Corinthians4:2, the apostle Paul makes it clear that “faith-fulness” is the true test of our stewardship toChrist. In his letter to the Ephesian church, Pauladdresses the “saints which are at Ephesus” andthe “faithful in Christ Jesus” (Ephesians 1:1).These are not two different groups. The saintsare those who are faithful in Christ Jesus. Thesame is true at Colosse (cf. Colossians 1:1). Thisis why Paul exhorted Christians everywhere to“continue in the faith” (Acts 14:22). The wordof God makes it clear that eternal salvation inheaven is dependent upon our continued faith-fulness to Christ (cf. Colossians 1:20-23). “Ifyou continue in the faith” implies that turningfrom the faith is certainly possible. In fact, inGalatians 5:4, the apostle Paul makes it clearthat a child of God can fall from grace, some-thing Calvinist teachers, who tout the doctrineof “once saved, always saved,” flatly deny. Asdisciples of Christ, we are more than willing tolet God be true, but every man a liar (cf. Romans3:4). When it comes to religious truth, only God,who cannot lie (cf. Titus 1:2), is to be trusted.

In Philippians 2:12, the apostle Paul wrote,“Therefore, my beloved, as you have alwaysobeyed, not as in my presence only, but nowmuch more in my absence, work out your ownsalvation with fear and trembling.” The apostleis not saying that every man is left to his own de-vices with regard to salvation, as if salvationwere totally dependent upon man. On the con-trary, salvation is, first and foremost, dependentupon the grace of God. Man, in spite of anythinghe might do, cannot, without God’s unmeritedfavor, save himself. The provision of salvation istotally of God. Nevertheless, man, in order to besaved, is under obligation to do something. Con-sequently, when man does whatever it is he isrequired to do, he is said to be saving himself (cf.Acts 2:40, KJV). What, then, is man required todo? Quite simply, he is required to obey God!On the first Pentecost after Jesus’ death, resur-rection, and ascension into heaven, those whohad heard and believed the gospel were requiredto repent and be baptized by the authority ofChrist in order to have their sins remitted (cf.

Page 26


Acts 2:38). In other words, Christ is the authorof eternal salvation unto all those who obey Him(cf. Hebrews 5:9). If we acknowledge Jesus asLord and obey Him, He will save us from ourpast sins. In addition, in order to stay saved, wemust continue to serve Him faithfully. As we dothis, we are said to be working out our own sal-vation “with fear and trembling” (Philippians2:12). “For,” as the next verse says, “it is Godwho works in you both to will and to do for Hisgood pleasure.” The Christian works out his ownsalvation by reverently and carefully followingthe Lord’s preceptive will. In doing so, he“proves what is that good and perfect will ofGod” (Romans 12:2).

The idea that one cannot be cast off foreveris not taught in the Scriptures. In his wise coun-sel to his son Solomon, David warned:

As for you, my son Solomon, know theGod of your father, and serve Him witha loyal heart and with a willing mind; forthe Lord searches all hearts and under-stands all the intent of the thoughts. Ifyou seek Him, He will be found by you;but if you forsake Him, He will cast youoff forever (1 Chronicles 28:9).Then, in Ezekiel 18:24 it is said:But when a righteous man turns awayfrom his righteousness and commits in-iquity, and does according to all theabominations that the wicked man does,shall he live? All the righteousnesswhich he has done shall not be remem-bered; because of the unfaithfulness ofwhich he is guilty and the sin which hehas committed, because of them he shalldie.Then, in Matthew 10:22, Jesus said, “But

he who endures to the end will be saved.” Whydid He say this? Is not the clear implication thatif we do not endure we will be lost? Do Jesus’words not imply that it is possible not to endureto the end? The answer to these questions ap-pears to be obvious: One who has been savedcan fail to endure to the end and, if he does, hewill be lost! This is exactly the same message Je-sus taught in Matthew 24:13. For sure, Jesus

was no Calvinist. In John 15:2, He said, “Everybranch in Me that does not bear fruit He takesaway; and every branch that bears fruit Heprunes, that it may bear more fruit.” In verse 6,He continues, “If anyone does not abide in Me,he is cast out as a branch and is withered; andthey gather them and throw them into the fire,and they are burned.” Now, does this sound likethe saved cannot be lost? Again, the answer isobvious. Of course, this is exactly what the apos-tle Paul taught:

For if God did not spare the naturalbranches, He may not spare you either.Therefore consider the goodness and se-verity of God: on those who fell, sever-ity; but toward you, goodness, if youcontinue in His goodness. Otherwiseyou also will be cut off (Romans 11:21-22).The apostle Paul was not a Calvinist either!

In fact, the apostle Paul was very much awarethat if he did not discipline his own body andkeep it under subjection that he himself could bea “castaway,” and this after having preached thegospel to others (cf. 1 Corinthians 9:26-27,KJV). And listen to what Paul said to the churchat Corinth: “Moreover, brethren, I declare toyou the gospel which I preached to you, whichalso you received and in which you stand, bywhich also you are saved, if you hold fast thatword which I preached to you, unless you be-lieved in vain” (1 Corinthians 15:1-2). Paul saidthey heard the gospel, believed it, stood in it,and were saved by it, but that they needed tocontinue to hold fast, unless they had believedin vain, in which case they would, by implica-tion, become unsaved or lost.

It is clear that the Bible does not teach Cal-vin’s system. I could continue to cite passage af-ter passage refuting the idea of “once saved,always saved” or “the Perseverance of theSaints,” but the ones cited above are sufficientto prove Calvinism wrong.

Page 27


Calvinistic “Sugar-Sticks”

In this section, we are going to look at someCalvinistic “sugar-sticks” or proof texts. Ad-mittedly, some of these passages are a little

difficult for a non-determinist. Trying to dealwith these passages without having a thoroughbiblical understanding as to why determinism iswrong could make one feel compelled to make amisapplication of these scriptures. Nevertheless,these so-called “sugar-sticks” can be satisfacto-rily interpreted from a non-determinist point ofview. This list appears at the end of this study sothat with a clear understanding as to why Cal-vinism is anti-biblical, we can together givethese passages a more thorough treatment.Therefore, if you have not already read what hasbeen written in this study, you need to do so.Having said that, let us now proceed to an ex-amination of these Calvinistic “sugar-sticks.”

Romans 5:12, “Wherefore, as by one mansin entered into the world, and death by sin; andso death passed upon all men, for that all havesinned” (KJV). In the Latin translation of thispassage, the Greek phrase eph’ ho is rendered“in him,” so that the last part of the passagereads, “for in him all men sinned.” Therefore, inmaking his argument for “Original Sin,” Augus-tine, who, as has already been pointed out, wasthe father of this doctrine, repeatedly made ref-erence to this verse in his many writings, think-ing it to be clear and unequivocal. Even so, intheir Commentary on Romans, which is recog-nized as one of the great modern textual authori-ties on the book of Romans, Sanday andHeadlam wrote, “Although this expression (eph’ho) has been much fought over, there can now belittle doubt that the true rendering is ‘because’”(pages 133-134). According to them, the Greekclassical writers used this phrase to mean “oncondition that.” In their consideration of theidea that the apostle meant to imply, “becauseall sinned in Adam,” they wrote: “The objectionis that the words supplied are far too importantto be left to be understood. If St. Paul had meantthis, why did he not say so? The insertion of enAdam would have removed all ambiguity”(ibid.).

Consequently, Romans 5:12 neither saysnor implies that all sinned in Adam, asAugustine and, later, Luther and Calvin thoughtand taught. Nevertheless, this passage and its

context is not easy to understand. First of all,what kind of death is under consideration in thispassage? Was Paul writing about physical deathor spiritual death? Most commentators seem tobe in agreement that Paul is referring to spiritualdeath. This seems clear from his statement thatdeath passed upon all men because all havesinned. This echoes the words of Ezekiel, whosaid, “The soul who sins shall die” (Ezekiel18:4,20), and Paul’s words in Romans 3:23,which say, “For all have sinned and fall short ofthe glory of God.” Little children do not them-selves sin, and even most Calvinists agree thatthis is true, therefore little children do not diespiritually. This can only mean that little chil-dren are not the subject of Romans 5:12 and3:23, anymore than they are of Ezekiel18:4,20, which falls within the immediate con-text of the statement:

Yet you say, ‘Why should the son notbear the guilt of the father?’ Because theson has done what is lawful and right,and has kept all My statutes and ob-served them, he shall surely live. Thesoul who sins shall die. The son shall notbear the guilt of the father, nor the fa-ther bear the guilt of the son. The right-eousness of the righteous shall be uponhimself, and the wickedness of thewicked shall be upon himself (Ezekiel18:19-20).Although Calvinism teaches that the son

(viz., all the descendants of Adam) bears theguilt of the father (Adam), God says this is sim-ply not so. Therefore, non-determinists haveheld that children are not in need of salvation,because if they have not sinned, they are notlost. Therefore, when Paul, referring to the aton-ing death of Jesus Christ, wrote “that if One diedfor all, then all died” (2 Corinthians 5:14), thedeath he was speaking of was spiritual deathand the “all” did not include children.

Consequently, Romans 5:12, while associ-ating the sinful condition (i.e., spiritual death)all men share with Adam, with whom the condi-tion first started, does not say the fallen natureof all mankind (children excluded) is inheritedfrom Adam. Here, and elsewhere, the Bibleteaches that we do not share his sin or guilt (cf.

Page 28


Romans 5:14), but ever since Adam, sin hasspread like a cancer until all of us have sinned.Today, like in Adam’s time, the entire humanrace shares in the same sinful condition. But,someone says, “Eve sinned first, why is not shementioned?” The answer is simple: Until Adamsinned, “all” the human race had not spirituallydied; but, when Adam sinned, all mankind wasfallen, and ever since that time, “all have sinnedand fall short of the glory of God” (Romans3:23).

Why, then, do little babies die physically? Isnot this because they share the guilt of Adam?No! Little babies do not share Adam’s guilt, northe guilt of their own parents; nevertheless, theydo share in the consequences of Adam’s sin and,many times, the sins of their own parents. AIDSbabies are a vivid reminder to us today that in-nocent babies suffer the consequences of theirparents’ sinful deeds. Likewise, a consequenceof Adam’s sin was that neither he nor any of hisdescendants would have access to the “tree oflife” on the purely physical plane (cf. Genesis3:22-24; Revelation 22:14), which means it isnow (ever since Adam’s sin) “appointed for mento die once” (Hebrews 9:27). Therefore, chil-dren die, not because they have inherited theguilt of Adam’s sin, but because they, as mem-bers of the human race, share in the conse-quences of the human race’s falleness. Somehesitate to use the word “falleness” becausethey are afraid it may connote a belief in Calvin-ism. As sensitive as I am to this position, I de-cided a long time ago to let the Bible, notCalvinists, dictate to me the use of biblical ex-pressions. That man’s falleness is an idea ex-pressed in Scripture over and over again is quiteclear (cf. 1 Corinthians 10:12; 1 Timothy 3:6-7; Galatians 5:4; Revelation 2:5). All havesinned means all are fallen (cf. Romans 3:23),consequently, I join my voice with that of theapostle Paul, who said: “O wretched man that Iam! Who will deliver me from this body of [thisself-inflicted spiritual] death? I thank God,through Jesus Christ our Lord!” (Romans 7:24-25).

Psalm 51:5, “Behold, I was shapen in iniq-uity; and in sin did my mother conceive me”(KJV). Most agree that the scribal insertion atthe beginning of this psalm is correct. Thismeans the psalm was written by David after Na-than had told him, “You are the man!” (2Samuel 12). Therefore, Psalm 51 is the bittercry of one broken with guilt and pain. Now, al-though I realize David was a prophet, my ques-tion is this: Are all David’s words in this Psalm

to be taken as sober theological pronounce-ments? If you think so, then you believe thatverse 4 is teaching that one can only sin againstGod, not man! But did not David also sin againstUriah? The answer seems obvious. Yes, Davidsinned against Uriah, but all sin is a personal af-front to God, and He has the right to judge manfor it. In other words, sin is always God’s busi-ness. Therefore, when it comes to verse 5, what-ever David might have been saying about hisparents, he said nothing about inherited sin or“sinning in Adam.”

Psalm 58:3, “The wicked are estrangedfrom the womb; they go astray as soon as theyare born, speaking lies” (KJV). Surely the psalm-ist is to be granted some “poetic license.” Are wereally to think that a baby, the moment it isborn, begins to speak lies? The point here is notinherited total depravity, as Calvinists wouldlike for us to believe, but the idea that it seemslike almost from the time an individual is born,that is, “from his youth” (Genesis 8:21), he goesastray. In other words, people who are wickedusually get started very early.

Job 14:4, “Who can bring a clean thing outof an unclean? not one” (KJV). A woman whogives birth to a child, having reached the age ofaccountability, has sinned, and the child towhich she gives birth, upon reaching the age ofaccountability, will sin. Consequently, this verseis just another way of saying that “all havesinned” (Romans 3:23; 5:12).

Job 15:14-16, “What is man, that he shouldbe clean? and he which is born of a woman, thathe should be righteous? Behold, he putteth notrust in his saints; yea, the heavens are not cleanin his sight. How much more abominable andfilthy is man, which drinketh iniquity like wa-ter?” (KJV). Nothing said in this passage, or theone mentioned above, teaches man is born to-tally depraved. Furthermore, even if this pas-sage did teach what Calvinists try to make itteach, it would be highly suspect in that theseare words spoken by Eliphaz, of whom God said,“My wrath is aroused against you and your twofriends, for you have not spoken of Me what isright, as My servant Job has” (Job 42:7).

Jeremiah 17:9, “The heart is deceitful aboveall things, and desperately wicked: who canknow it?” (KJV). Yes, it most certainly is! Oncewe allow sin to enter in, our human hearts be-come corrupted and spiritually diseased. We cannever again trust our own feelings or emotions.Consequently, many sins that are really very

Page 29


wicked “feel” like they are okay. In anotherplace, Jeremiah said: “O Lord, I know the way ofman is not in himself; it is not in man who walksto direct his own steps. O Lord, correct me, butwith justice; not in Your anger, lest You bringme to nothing” (Jeremiah 10:23-24). As sinnerswho have gone astray, we need the Lord’s guid-ance, which is readily available in the Scrip-tures. This is why those of us who are in a rightrelationship with the Lord “walk by faith, not bysight” (2 Corinthians 5:7).

I know I have not dealt with all the Calvinis-tic sugar-sticks, but our treatment of these oughtto demonstrate that Calvinistic sugar-sticks arenot what they may first appear to be. Manycome to the wrong conclusions about these pas-sages because they do not know how to properlyinterpret the Bible (cf. 2 Timothy 2:15). Beingable to cite a few proof texts might make, andeven keep, one a Calvinist, but learning how torightly divide the Scriptures allows one to be-come, and stay, a Christian.

Page 30


Conclusion

In concluding this study, I should like toquote once more the words of the Calviniststhemselves. Commenting on the dark picture

painted by the doctrine of Total Depravity, Bo-ettner said:

This side of the picture is dark, verydark indeed; but its supplement is theglory of God in redemption. Each ofthese truths must be seen in its true lightbefore the other can be adequately ap-preciated (op. cit., page 80).Unlike Boettner and his Calvinist constitu-

ents, I accept what the Bible says about the gloryof God in redemption. Indeed, the eternal God ismy refuge, and underneath are the everlastingarms (cf. Deuteronomy 33:27), but I totally re-ject the very dark picture of the crowning gloryof God's creation totally unable to positively re-spond to Him with love and obedience. Andwhat does this dark picture say about Calvin'sGod? Where is the glory in a God who must, bythe constraint of His sovereign will, coerce loveand obedience from those under His care? Intruth, Calvin’s God is nothing more than anogre, a being of the most brutish sort, taking byforce that which has not been freely given toHim.

Is this the picture painted of either God orman in the book of Job? Listen to and learn fromthe conversation between God and Satan:

Then the Lord said to Satan, “Have youconsidered My servant Job, that there isnone like him on the earth, a blamelessand upright man, one who fears Godand shuns evil?” So Satan answered theLord and said, “Does Job fear God fornothing? Have You not made a hedgearound him, around his household, andaround all that he has on every side?You have blessed the work of his hands,and his possessions have increased inthe land. But now, stretch out Yourhand and touch all that he has, and hewill surely curse You to Your face!” Andthe Lord said to Satan, “What a com-plete simpleton you are Satan. Do younot know of my Eternal Decree? Jobserves Me because He has no otherchoice. Even if he had free will, and hedoes not, he could not curse Me even if

He wanted to, and all this because of MySovereign Will and not because of any-thing in Job” (Job 1:8-12).No, this is not what God said. What He said

was: “‘Behold, all that he has is in your power;only do not lay a hand on his person.’ So Satanwent out from the presence of the Lord.”

Of course, the lesson is this, a man, of hisown free will, will serve God and, in general, re-main faithful to Him even when he cannot un-derstand why God is permitting terrible thingsto happen to him. Job was God's servant, and heserved Him because he wanted to, not becauseGod had shackled his will and coerced him. Heserved God with his own free will. He couldhave cursed God, and there were those whourged him to do so, but he did not, and this wasnot because he could not, even if he wanted to,because of God's Eternal Decree. No, he contin-ued to serve God willingly even when it lookedlike God had become his own worst enemy.Now, what was the lesson Satan learned in allthis? Was it that Job would continue to serveGod because He had decreed that he would, orwas it that a man would willingly continue toserve God even if all seems for naught?

Calvin was wrong, and all who espouse hisdoctrine are wrong. The God they serve is notthe One who has revealed Himself in the Bible.They have bowed themselves down to an idol oftheir own making, created for their own destruc-tion (cf. Hosea 8:4). Ironically, and the devilloves irony, Calvinists, who think they cannot belost, will, if they do not turn from their false sys-tem, be cut off (i.e., eternally lost) as a result oftheir allegiance to a false religious system, a sys-tem that impugns both God and man.

It is my sincere prayer that this study willhelp you to help Calvinists see the error of theirsystem. And, for those of you who have neverimbibed this doctrine, it is my desire that thisstudy will assist you in keeping yourselves fromidols (cf. 1 John 5:21).

Page 31


Other materials are available for freeon the Web at http://allanturner.com

http://allanturner.com/NotWilling.pdf

Documents

Not Willing That Any Should Perish - Re: Thinking