One primary reason I am not a Calvinist is that I do not believe in God’s detailed control of all events. Why? First, because I find it impossible to believe that I am more merciful or compassionate than God. Second, because the biblical portrait shows that God is pure light and holy love. In him there is no darkness, nothing other than light and love. And third, the words, “The Lord gave, and the Lord has taken away,” from the lips of Job (1:21), are not good theology. According to Job 1, it was not God but the Devil who took away Job’s children, health, and wealth. God allowed it to happen, but when Job said these words, as the rest of the story shows, he was not yet enlightened about the true nature of the source of his calamity and God’s actual will for his life. God’s will for him was for good and not for harm.

I want to focus on the words Witherington writes about Job for this, although I reject his first two premises as being opposed to Calvinism in the first place. However, since we’ve currently been looking through Job, it should be obvious to current readers of my blog that Witherington’s point about Job is not only wrong, but immediately apparent if one just continues to read the very next verse after the one Witherington quoted.

Witherington tells us that “The Lord gave, and the Lord has taken away” is “not good theology”, yet the narrator of Job says, “In all this Job did not sin or charge God with wrong (Job 1:22, ESV).” Job’s statements were not sinful statements, and indeed they were approved by the narrator. Job does not say anything sinful or impure until he begins to lament and curse the day of his birth (which, while not a direct cursing of God to His face is an indirect cursing of God for having created him in the first place).

And far from Witherington’s claim, “it was not God but the Devil who took away Job’s children, health, and wealth”, God Himself states: “He [Job] still holds fast his integrity, although you incited me against him to destroy him without reason” (Job 2:3, ESV). Note that the passage does not say, “You incited me to allow you to destroy him without reason.” No, God doesn’t speak here of permitting Satan at all. Instead, God speaks as if He Himself were the actor.

Now, I can understand that Christians would like to insulate God from any charges of evil, but if God Himself has no problem ascribing what was done to Job to Himself, then why should any Christian have any problem ascribing those things to Him? We are not going beyond Scripture when we affirm what Scripture itself says. The fact of the matter is that the verse does not allow us to view this in terms of “allowing” evil at all, and it is a trite and tired defense to try to deflect what happened to Job into the realm of permission anyway. The Bible itself does not seek that defense. Instead of telling Job, “I didn’t do this to you, I just allowed Satan to do it to you” (which, I must point out, is little comfort to the one who is going through troubles, for if it is unloving for God to actively do such actions, it is equally unloving for God to sit back and allow it to happen when it could not happen apart from His permission in the first place), God responds: “Where were you when I created the world?” (Job 38:4, paraphrased).

It doesn’t matter that God’s response is too “harsh” or too “politically incorrect” or too “Calvinistic.” The fact is, that is God’s response. And as I’ve been arguing with my Chronological Commentary, this is the first way in which God wanted Himself to be known to mankind. This is His first revelation to us, and the first thing He wanted us to know of His character. It seems to me, therefore, that it’s highly significant and pretty important for us to get sovereignty right—even sovereignty over evil actions—before we begin to speak of what is or is not loving in the sight of God.

A while back, I wrote a blog post called The Primacy of Creator-Sovereignty in Scripture. In that post, I asked:

Does God present His love as His primary attribute to us in Scripture? I would argue the evidence overwhelmingly answers that question in the negative, but rather His Creator-Sovereignty is the primary attribute He emphasizes.

Now, as we’re about to examine the suffering of Job, I had a couple of thoughts.

First, is your concept of the love of God consistent with God removing His blessing from a righteous man and allowing Satan to kill all of his children? If it is not, then I daresay that you do not understand what the love of God actually is. And this brings me to the second question: what reason would there be for God to emphasize His sovereignty before He reveals His love? After all, if you read the Old Testament and ask, “What is the primary attribute of God?” the answer is clearly going to be “His holiness.” That is the attribute that is emphasized.

I believe that I have some insight into why God chose to reveal Himself as sovereign first, and then later as a loving God too. It appears to me that it is much easier for a mind to grasp God’s sovereignty first, and then understand the love of God, than the reverse. That is, if one understands God’s sovereignty and understands why God is moral when doing to Job what He does, then one can then easily see God’s love is still there. If, however, you begin with a concept of the love of God which is divorced from any understanding of God’s sovereignty, then you are going to assume that what God does to Job has no possible justification and therefore cannot in any way be construed as a loving action.

We see this come out in the Calvinism/Arminianism debate too. Calvinists who understand God’s sovereignty are quick to see the love of God too. Arminians focus on the love of God and therefore conclude that a God who is sovereign is a moral monster. Indeed, even concluding (as folks like Roger Olson have said) that the Calvinist God is worse than the devil. Yet only a Calvinist view of God’s sovereignty and, more importantly, only a Calvinist view of God’s love can make sense of what God did to Job. If you start with the typical concept of love presented by most Christians today, it is impossible to reconcile God’s behavior in the Old Testament with that understanding.

I maintain that it is precisely for that reason that God first revealed Himself in the way He did. It is because our misunderstanding of what love is comes into conflict with the God we see in the Old Testament, and that therefore shows that our modern understanding of “love” is at fault. Only if you can reconcile the love of God with the actions of God can you have a genuine understanding of what love truly is. And therefore, only if one understands God first as sovereign and Lord can one understand God as love.

Opponents of Reformed Doctrine, whether they be Roman Catholics, Arminians, Mormons, etc., do not have the luxury of quoting long passages of Scripture to demonstrate their position. Calvinists, on the other hand, fear no text and no passage of Scripture because, quite frankly, Calvinism is the sum of the entire Bible. Indeed, Calvinism is simply another word for the Gospel.

It should therefore not be very surprising that there are single books in the Bible that demonstrate every single point that a Calvinist makes. One of these books is the Gospel of John. Consequently, in John you will find references to every single part of TULIP:

Total depravity
Unconditional election
Limited atonement
Irresistible grace
Perseverance of the saints

So allow me now to demonstrate TULIP in John.

Total Depravity in the Gospel of John

The first inklings of the doctrine of Total Depravity come relatively early on in the text. In the prologue of John (John 1:1-18) we read that Christ came to earth in a human form. Verse 10 tells us, “He was in the world, and the world was made through Him, and the world did not know Him.” This is very astonishing when you think about it. The very world that Christ created did not know who Christ was!

If you think back to Genesis, Adam walked with God in the Garden of Eden. There was an intimate knowledge that Adam had of who God was. And yet, by the time Christ came, that knowledge had been diminished to such an extent that the world did not recognize its Maker. How could such knowledge be lost? It is not merely through the lack of understanding, but due to the innate evil that suppresses such knowledge (as Romans 1 makes clear).

In John 3 we learn about the necessity to be born again for salvation. Nicodemus, a Pharisee, came to Jesus secretly and asked how to be saved. Jesus’ response is very interesting and deserves to be dealt with in great detail by anyone reading John. However, for our discussion here, let us dwell on John 3:6. Here Jesus states, “That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.” This verse is key to Calvinistic doctrine for several reasons, not the least of which is the demonstration that the flesh begets flesh. In other words, to be born again one must be born of the Spirit. This action cannot come from the original flesh because the flesh can only beget flesh. In other words, the flesh is unable to produce the required spiritual birth because it is depraved (if flesh was not depraved, the one would not need the Spirit).

Most non-Reformed readers of the third chapter of John fixate on John 3:16 and never go beyond that point. However, Jesus add critical detail for our discussion starting in verse 19-20. “This is the judgment, that the Light has come into the world, and men loved the darkness rather than the Light, for their deeds were evil. For everyone who does evil hates the Light, and does not come to the Light for fear that his deeds will be exposed.”

Men love darkness instead of Light. The Light is none other than Christ Himself. And why is it that men love darkness rather than Light? “For their deeds were evil.” But now comes an even stronger indictment: “[E]veryone who does evil hates the Light, and does not come to the Light.” The language cannot get much stronger than this. It is not an issue of someone being in discomfort in the Light—it is hatred, absolute and utter hatred of the Light. This hatred spawns in the heart of the unbeliever for a specific reason: “for fear that his deeds will be exposed.” This is a selfish motive indeed, and it too was in the Garden of Eden. When Adam sinned, the first thing he did was hide from God. Men are like that ever since because of the fear of having our deeds exposed. God is perfect and pure, and because of that in our natural state we hate Him and will not come to Him. This simply is total depravity.

But there is more. In John 8, Jesus had a conversation with the Pharisees that made them so angry that, by the end of it, they wanted to stone Jesus. Part of what He said is located in John 8:34. Here, Jesus states: “Truly, truly, I say to you, everyone who commits sin is the slave of sin.” The situation is not desperate for the sinful man—it is far beyond that! Everyone who sins is a slave to sin, and as we saw earlier in John 3 this means that everyone who sins will hate the Light and not go near it. He continues in verses 42-43:

Jesus said to them, “If God were your Father, you would love Me, for I proceeded forth and have come from God, for I have not even come on My own initiative, but He sent Me. Why do you not understand what I am saying? It is because you cannot hear My word.”

Jesus makes an important distinction right off the bat. “If God were your Father, you would love Me.” This is important because it links into the next sentence: “Why do you not understand what I am saying? It is because you cannot hear My word.”

The theme is continued in John 14:16-17. “I will ask the Father, and He will give you another Helper, that He may be with you forever; that is the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it does not see Him or know Him, but you know Him because He abides with you and will be in you.” Here, we see that the world cannot receive the Spirit of truth. These passages demonstrate the total depravity of mankind.

Unconditional Election in the Gospel of John

Obviously if we hate the Light and will not draw near it, then we are in deep trouble. How can any be saved? Thankfully, the solution is contained in the second letter in TULIP—Unconditional Election.

Again, John starts early in his Gospel. John 1:12-13 states: “But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name, who were born, not of blood nor the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.” Here we see that those who believe and are saved do so because they are born, not by the will of man but rather those who are born of God.

Furthermore, we read in John 5:21 the following: “For just as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, even so the Son also gives life to whom He wishes.” This passage is interesting because of the possible interpretations. Christ is either talking about physical death, or spiritual death, or both. If we look at the context surrounding this verse we read the following statement in the very next verse, “For not even the Father judges any one, but He has given all judgment to the Son.” The conclusion of Jesus’ statement is, “He who hears My words and believes Him who sent Me has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life” (verse 24). Obviously, then, the death is not referring to a physical death, but rather a spiritual death. As such, when Christ says, “Even so the Son also gives life to whom He wishes” we see that the raising of someone to spiritual life is based on what both the Father and the Son desire to do.

John writes in chapter 6 starting at verse 63:

”It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life. But there are some of you who do not believe.” For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were who did not believe, and who it was that would betray Him. And He was saying, “For this reason I have said to you, that no one can come to Me unless it has been granted him from the Father.”

The first thing to note is that verse 63 gives us yet another indication of total depravity—”the flesh profits nothing.” As we have seen in John 3, the flesh can only beget flesh, but the Spirit begets spirit. So the question is how does anyone get the Spirit? The answer is that God draws a certain people to Himself. He does not draw everyone, and this is clear in verse 65. It is because some people would not believe that Christ said, “no one can come to Me unless it has been granted him from the Father.”

Jesus continues in chapter 8, once again the passage where the Pharisees wanted to stone Him for what He had spoken. John 8:42-47 is important here. We have already seen how verses 42-43 show the total depravity of man. Let us continue the passage on verse 44:

You are of your father the devil and you want to do the desires of your father. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth because there is no truth in him. Whenever he speaks a lie, he speaks from his own nature, for he is a liar and the father of lies. But because I speak the truth, you do not believe Me. Which one of you convicts Me of sin? If I speak truth, why do you not believe Me? He who is of God hears the words of God; for this reason you do not hear them, because you are not of God.

Again, the depravity of man echoes through this passage, but I did not include it earlier because of the conclusion that Christ draws. He asks a question: “Why do you not believe Me?” He then answers it: “He who is of God hears the words of God; for this reason you do not hear them, because you are not of God.” In other words, those who belong to God hear the word of God. There are two groups of people: those who belong to God, and those who do not.

This theme continues in Chapter 10. Here we read, “I told you, and you do not believe; the works that I do in My Father’s name, these testify of Me. But you do not believe because you are not of My sheep” (John 10:25-26). Again, there are two groups of people here: the sheep and the non-sheep. Jesus continues, “My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow Me; and I give eternal life to them, and they will never perish; and no one will snatch them out of My hand. My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all” (verses 26-29). As you can guess, we will discuss this verse again later when we look at Perseverance of the saints. However, the important thing to note here is that the sheep who hear Christ’s voice are the ones specifically given by the Father to the Son. In other words, the sheep are an Elect people, given to the Son by the Father for salvation.

Jesus has even more explicit words about the election involved in John 15:16. Here he says, “You did not choose Me but I chose you.” He continues in John 15:19. “If you were of the world, the world would love its own; but because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, because of this the world hates you.” This passage not only demonstrates that Christ chose the disciples just to be with Him, but that His act of choosing pulled them out of the world. As a result, those who were chosen were hated from the world—but the world always accepts its own. The logical conclusion is that the choice that caused such hatred was a choice to salvation.

The election language continues in John 17:6.

I have manifested Your name to the men whom You gave Me out of the world; they were Yours and You gave them to Me, and they have kept Your word.” Once again, the choice caused them to go out from the world. They were no longer a part of the world. Verse 9 continues the thought: “I ask on their behalf; I do not ask on behalf of the world, but of those whom You have given Me; for they are Yours.

Thus election is clearly seen in the Gospel of John.

Limited Atonement in the Gospel of John

Christ’s death is also limited to the Elect, as is seen in several passages in John. The clearest example is John 10:14-15. “I am the good shepherd, and I know My own and My own know Me, even as the Father knows Me and I know the Father; and I lay down My life for the sheep.”

The distinction between the groups of people are clear in this passage, for Jesus states in verse 26, “You do not believe because you are not of My sheep.” Jesus has both groups in mind here when He states that He lays down His life “for the sheep.” Because there are two groups in view and He only says that He lays His life down for one of them, the logical force of the text is that He does not do so for the other group.

As we saw in John 17 earlier, Jesus prays specifically for those who were chosen, and specifically does not pray for the world. “I ask on their behalf; I do not ask on behalf of the world” (John 17:9). What was asked? The answer is found in verse 2: “To all whom You have given Him, He may give eternal life.” This echoes throughout the passage.

Also, when we look at the preceding passages about the Unconditional Election of some, the obvious conclusion is that Christ died specifically for those people. This must be the case because of how the atonement works. For example, Christ says, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in yourselves” (John 6:53). This shows that the atonement (Christ’s death on the cross, which is symbolized by his flesh and blood) must be applied to someone in order for that person to be saved; yet as we have seen, only those whom the Father draws are able to come to the Son.

The limit of the Atonement is also demonstrated when Christ says, “If you know these things, you are blessed if you do them. I do not speak of all of you. I know the ones I have chosen” (John 13:17-18). Here Christ shows us some blessings that flow from obeying Christ; yet the blessings are not for all, but specifically for the ones whom Christ has chosen. These blessings flow from the forgiveness of the cross.

Irresistible Grace in the Gospel of John

The first thing to note is that Irresistible Grace refers specifically to the act of Regeneration alone. That is, it is certainly possible to sin and resist the Holy Spirit; however, not in the action of salvation. The reason why is because dead people can resist nothing. As we have seen, men are totally depraved and spiritually dead. They have to be born again, not of the will of man but of God, in order to believe.

And what is the result? “That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit” (John 3:6). Notice what is said here: flesh can only beget flesh, and the Spirit can only beget spirit. Therefore, if you are born again through the Spirit (which is the only possible way to be born again), then the Spirit will beget spirit! The Spirit cannot beget flesh, so it will accomplish what it was intended to do.

Furthermore, we read “This is the will of My Father, that everyone who beholds the Son and believes in Him will have eternal life, and I Myself will raise him up on the last day” (John 6:40). The will of the Father is that those who believe will be saved. Those who believe are the ones drawn by the Father: “No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him” (John 6:44); and yet the conclusion is that those who are drawn will be saved. It is irresistible. “And I will raise him up on the last day,” Jesus concludes in John 6:44. There is no question about it.

We further read in John 10:14-15, “I am the good shepherd, and I know My own and My own know Me, even as the Father knows Me and I know the Father.” This is intimacy that comes about as a result of the Election of God. The Sheep know who the Savior is—they cannot mistake it; and yet as we have earlier seen, the flesh cannot comprehend the Spirit, so the sheep, in order to know Christ, must be first raised to life. Since all the sheep know Christ, then all the sheep are raised. It is impossible for there to be any who refuse Regeneration.

Perseverance of the Saints in the Gospel of John

We have already seen this mentioned in several passages, but it bears writing some more on now. John 5:24 states, “Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life.” The words could not be clearer. He who believes already has eternal life. Eternal life cannot disappear—it is eternal. Furthermore, the one who believes “does not come into judgment.” Why? Because he has “passed out of death into life.” The words are crystal here, and we can take them fully to heart.

But there is more. Let us read the precious words of Christ: “This is the will of Him who sent Me, that of all that He has given Me I lose nothing, but raise it up on the last day.” “No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up on the last day.” “He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise Him up on the last day”, “My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me; and I give eternal life to them, and they will never perish; and no one will snatch them out of My hand”, “In My Father’s house are many dwelling places; if it were not so, I would have told you; for I go to prepare a place for you. If I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again and receive you to Myself, that where I am, there you may be also.” (John 6:39, 44, 54; 10:27-28, 14:2-3).

The passages are clear and need no commentary.

Conclusion

As we have seen, the Gospel of John alone proves all five points of Calvinism. Man is totally depraved and must be unconditionally elected to be saved. The regeneration that comes is irresistible. It accomplishes what it is intended to do because the atonement is specifically for those who are Elect unto Christ. And as a result, salvation cannot be lost.

The Reformation helped demonstrate that the need for reforming the church, and indeed even ourselves, is always constant. Heretics have never thought they were teaching false doctrines, and those who followed them have always believed their way was the right and true path. It is no less difficult for us today to slip into the mindset that we are above those kinds of errors, to go off and commit even worse heresies.

Romans 12:2 states, “And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, so that you may prove what the will of God is, that which is good and acceptable and perfect.” We see the issue put before us boldly in black and white. Do not be conformed to the world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind.

Conformed or transformed. The two words have similar meanings, but there are important differences. When we think of conformity, we think of changing ourselves to be like something around us. It is not an internal change, but rather an external mimicry. In this passage, we are told not to be conformed to the world—we are not to appear like it because we are not like it. Conforming to the world would be to put on worldly behavior, to act as if you were part of the world and to live a lie.

Transformation, on the other hand, is the result of changes to our being, and often we are transformed by something external to ourselves (in this case, by the renewing of our mind, which does not come from the mind itself for the mind is precisely that which is changed). This word, transformation, in the Greek is very interesting. The word is metamorphousthe, from which we get the word metamorphosis. A metamorphosis is a change at the very heart of what we are. It is the altering of the core of a being, such that what emerges is unrecognizable from its former state, just as a butterfly looks so radically different from a caterpillar. This transformation cannot be considered an act of conformity because the very root of our beings have been changed.

But what is this outside influence that can make such a drastic change in us? And how do we keep from conforming to the world after having this transformation take place? It is important to study the context of the passage. Romans 11:36, the verse immediately preceding chapter 12, reads: “For from Him and through Him and to Him are all things. To Him be the glory forever. Amen.”

This is the end of Paul’s doxology. In the doxology, Paul writes glorious praises to God, and he concludes with this verse saying that God must be central in everything. Indeed, it is literally impossible for God to not be central, because from Him and through Him and to Him are all things.

The outcome of that is Paul saying, “Therefore I urge you, brethren, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies a living and holy sacrifice, acceptable to God, which is your spiritual service of worship.” Then, the verse we just looked at: “And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed (metamorphosed) by the renewing of your mind, so that you may prove what the will of God is, that which is good and acceptable and perfect.”

To do this, our focus must first be correct. It must be on God Himself. Chapter 12 beings with a “therefore” connecting it to the previous thought. If we do not understand “from Him and through Him and to Him are all things” then we cannot understand how we can be transformed rather than conformed.

Reformers have always sought God first in our theology. This is the key to the renewing of our minds, to have God first and foremost in everything, because that is the right and perfect thing to do. Who better than God to renew our minds?

And what does it mean to renew our mind? The results that occur after renewal help us to see what it means. The renewal of our minds causes the very metamorphosis that changes us to something completely alien from the world. This transformation is what enables us to know what the will of God is and to “prove” it to ourselves. It demonstrates what is good and acceptable and perfect to God. And how does this renewing take place? A similar passage from a different Pauline letter shows us.

Titus 3:5-6 says, “He saved us, not on the basis of deeds which we have done in righteousness, but according to His mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit, whom He poured out upon us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior.” This renewal does not come from anything we do—we do not transform ourselves. As Titus says, even the deeds that we have done “in righteousness” are not renewal. This renewing is a work of the Holy Spirit, and is just as much a part of God’s work as our regeneration unto salvation was. The two go hand in hand.

Without this renewal, we would grow stagnant. Our thoughts would turn back to the worldly ways and we would conform to the world anew. But God has not left us to those old ways! Our salvation guarantees that we will be renewed in our minds, renewed by the Holy Spirit, and that will transform us from being conformed to the world to being children of God.

Reformation is truly an on-going experience. It will never cease because we constantly grow steadily transformed toward the image of Christ, through the very renewal that sweeps out the old, dead, useless things of the world and metamorphoses us into what God wants us to be. “For from Him and through Him and to Him are all things. To Him be the glory forever. Amen.”

While it is one thing to spend time debunking Arminian claims, it is also necessary to present a positive argument for Calvinism. After all, disproving Arminianism does not prove Calvinism since logically it is possible that both views are unbiblical (this is because while there are certain parts of the faith structure that are binary, much of the disagreement between Calvinists and Arminians is not an either/or).

Rather than stick to the typical TULIP format and just argue for each of those points, I will use a different approach relying on Biblical themes as a whole and how they logically interplay, rather than trying to show how they fit into TULIP itself. This isn’t because I disagree with TULIP. In fact, I’d happily debate anyone who thinks that any part of TULIP is wrong. However, I don’t believe something just because John Calvin or Martin Luther or St. Augustine said it, or because it’s been systematized by the Synods of Dort. I believe something if it is the Bible, and I pray that all my readers hold that same respect as well.

Perhaps you do not know what a Calvinist is. In fact, many people who think they do know what a Calvinist is actually have a distorted, false view (one of the biggest problems debating someone is getting past all the false theories that people think Calvinism is).

So, what is a Calvinist? Spurgeon says in A Defense of Calvinism

“Salvation is of the LORD.” That is just an epitome of Calvinism; it is the sum and substance of it. If anyone should ask me what I mean by a Calvinist, I should reply, “He is one who says, Salvation is of the LORD.” I cannot find in Scripture any other doctrine than this. It is the essence of the Bible.

Salvation is of the LORD. That emphasis does sum up Calvinism. How are we saved? Do we choose God or does God choose us? How are we held responsible if God does choose us?

These are some of the questions that I will attempt to answer now.

What is Man’s Natural State?

The natural state of man is one of Total Depravity (or Total Inability). This is one of the most often debated topics on Calvinism for several reasons, not the least of them dealing with the fact of what the definition of Total Depravity is.

There are those out there in the world who think that man’s will is neutral when he is born—that man can be either good or bad and is always free to choose or the other. But this view cannot stand Biblically. For instance, if man’s will is neutral at birth, how do we account for the fact that everyone has sinned? (Romans 3:23) Wouldn’t it be possible for someone to live a perfect life if, at birth, the person had a neutral will that could go either way? In addition, there is the relationship of sin and death. The Bible teaches us that death is a result of sin (Romans 8:28). Yet babies die all the time. It would be unjust for God to allow babies to die if they were not already under the penalty of sin.

In addition to these points, there is yet a third problem. This gets more into the philosophy of making a choice, but it is necessary to ponder. If man’s will is free and therefore not inclined in any particular direction, then why does he actually choose one way or another? If man’s will had no inclination to sin, then what reason would man have to sin? If man’s will had no inclination to do good, then what reason would man have to do good? If man does good or evil for no reason, then it is like having an effect without a cause (an illogical thing to believe).

This is demonstrated Biblically as well. For example, when Jesus condemns the Pharisees, He states: “You brood of vipers! How can you speak good, when you are evil? For out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks” (Matthew 12:34). The mouth speaks evil because the heart of the individual is evil. The heart is often used as a metaphor in Scripture for the will of a man.

The result of this is that we know that the man who does evil is the man who already has an evil heart. This is why Jesus tells us, “You will recognize them by their fruits” (Matthew 7:16, and again in Matthew 7:20). Further: “A healthy tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a diseased tree bear good fruit” (Matthew 7:18). When someone chooses to do evil, it is because he is already an evil person. A good person would never choose to do evil.

And the evil nature of every single person is amply testified to in Scripture:

As it is written:
“There is no one righteous, not even one;
there is no one who understands, no one who seeks God.
All have turned away, they have together become worthless;
There is no one who does good, not even one” (Romans 3:10-12)

The universal “no one” cannot be denied. “There is no one who does good, not even one.” As you see, the “not even one” is another proof that “no one” means no one.

One of the more civil Arminian debaters I interacted with countered that Paul is actually quoting Psalm 14. As such, this person contends that you cannot fully trust a Psalm to provide literal doctrine, since there is much use of hyperbole and other figurative speech. Yes, there is figurative language in this Psalm—verse 4 says, “those who devour my people as men eat bread”. One could genuinely ask if it is literally true that no one does any good at all. (The Psalmist would be considered good, wouldn’t he?)

To answer this, let’s look at the Psalm in more detail:

The fool says in his heart, “There is no God.”
They are corrupt, their deeds are vile;
There is no one who does good.

So let’s take the Psalm on its own terms. What does it say about those who do not do good? First of all, it shows that this is not talking about the righteous man, it is talking about “the fool” and those who “are corrupt” and have vile deeds. Who are these people? The unbelievers who say, “There is no God.” Secondly, we see further down in verse 4 that it is the “evildoers” who “never learn” and “devour my people as men eat bread.” There is a big distinction between the unregenerate and the regenerate in this passage. Does this present problems for the Calvinist view?

Well, first Calvinism does not teach that once you are saved you cannot do good deeds. That would be pure folly. Calvinism teaches that the unregenerate can do nothing to please God. The unregenerate are not believers…which means that this Psalm fits exactly into Calvinism, even accounting for the use of hyperbole and figurative language.

But there is another aspect to look at. While it is true that the Psalm came first, Paul quoted it for a reason. And what is Paul’s reason?

Paul quite clearly says that all of us are under sin. Romans 3:9 says, “What shall we conclude then? Are we any better? Not at all! We have already made the charge that Jews and Gentiles alike are all under sin.” The whole purpose of this passage is to show that salvation does not come by being born a Jew or by living a “good” life under the Law. In other words, even if the Psalm uses figurative language, Paul’s use of the Psalm is to establish a universal point. If all are under sin regardless of our circumstances of birth or by obeying the Law, would that not seem to indicate that all men are born depraved?

As Psalm 58:3 states,

Even from birth the wicked go astray;
From the womb they are wayward and speak lies.

This is also supported in other passages, such as Ephesians 2:1-3

As for you, you were dead in your transgressions and sins, in which you used to live when you followed the ways of this world and of the ruler of the kingdom of the air, the spirit who is now at work in those who are disobedient. All of us also lived among them at one time, gratifying the cravings of our sinful nature and following its desires and thoughts. Like the rest, we were by nature objects of wrath.

What can we conclude from this passage? Let us examine it in greater detail.

The first thing that we see is that we are “dead in transgressions and sins.” What does this mean? Surely it was not a physical death—these so-called dead people still walk around, still have families, still drive cars, and still live. So what does the “dead” mean in this passage? It means the spiritual death that comes from sin. We are dead in sin.

“Oh, but that doesn’t mean you are depraved!” some may be saying. But what else could it mean? The answer of why we sin is found further down in the text in verse 3 when we are told about our “sinful nature.”

Now, just what is a nature? It is something that you are, in your very being. It is not something that you can fake or pretend. For instance, we speak of the natural color of a person’s hair—if it is dyed, it is not “natural.” A natural habitat is one that is undisturbed by people. Natural ability is the ability someone has by virtue of their genes, such as someone who has the natural ability to play any musical instrument with ease. Nature refers to the innate qualities of a person (indeed, the “innate” implies “nature” in its very meaning). So what of our nature?

Those who live according to the sinful nature have their minds set on what that nature desires; but those who live in accordance with the Spirit have their minds set on what the Spirit desires. The mind of sinful man is death, but the mind controlled by the Spirit is life and peace; the sinful mind is hostile to God. It does not submit to God’s law, nor can it do so. Those controlled by the sinful nature cannot please God (Romans 8:5-8).

What heavy words are found here! Those who do not submit to God cannot even do so. The sinful mind cannot be saved! It cannot submit. Sinners cannot please God. And by logical necessity, because we are all born with a sinful nature, we cannot naturally please Him.

So now we must ask why this is the case. Why are we born into sin and transgressions and into “death”? The answer is found in the beginning.

Original Sin—Adam’s Demise

To answer the question we asked above, we must examine the events that occurred in the Garden of Eden, back when Eve was tempted by the serpent to eat the forbidden fruit, and then Adam ate as well. The first question that comes to mind is, “Is this a literal passage in the Bible, or more of a parable?”

To answer that question we can ask ourselves yet another one. Does the curse of Adam still haunt us today? Obviously, the answer is yes—men are still forced to work the land and to live by the sweat of our brow, women still have a painful childbirth (as they have for countless generations). And obviously the serpent that was cursed was not the only serpent who was forced to lick the dust of the ground. Why would the objects of a parable be cursed?

So if it is a literal event, then we must deal with the outcome. We experience the curse that came due to Adam. Is it fair for God to judge us for something that we had no control over? This is where the concept of Federalism becomes so useful.

In Federalism, a group of people is represented by a singular head. All of mankind was represented in the Garden of Eden by Adam. Like the U.S. House of Representatives, we had a representative for us, on in this case is was not for our political rights but rather for our spiritual nature. This representative failed the test God gave him and, as a result, all who he represented are held responsible as well.

Why? We did not elect him, so why should we be under his penalty? We had no choice in the matter, so why are we blamed?

Yes, it is true that we did not elect our representative. Yet it was not some fallible person who chose our representative, it was God Almighty. Some of us think that if we had been in the Garden, we would have acted differently and would not have fallen. Beloved, this is simply not the case! If God could have had a better representative in Eden and He picked a worse one, then His is the responsibility. If you really would have made a difference and God did not choose you as a representative, then God is not just. Adam perfectly represented man in the Garden because he was made perfectly, and to deny this would be to say that God made a mistake.

So God made the perfect representative for all of mankind, and that perfect man sinned. What does the his fall mean for us? Primarily, death entered into the world. When Adam sinned, he was spiritually dead and, as a result, so is everyone who comes from Adam. Furthermore, the result of this spiritual death is that ultimately we all physically die too.

Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned — for before the law was given, sin was in the world. But sin is not taken into account when there is no law. Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who was a pattern of the one to come (Romans 5:12-14).

You see: death reigned even over those “who did not sin by breaking a command.” Yet, “the wages of sin is death” (Romans 6:23). Death comes from sin, even for those who did not break a specific command! Where does this just punishment come from if they did not break a command? This is the essence of original sin—we sin because we are born sinners; we do not become sinners because we sin.

Predestination

While many modern Arminians reject the above consequences of Scripture, Classical Arminians agree with Calvinists that man is born depraved. The differences between these two views come to a head on the issue of how anyone is saved. For while the Classical Arminians agree that man is born in sin, they also believe that God grants sufficient grace to all men everywhere that enables them to choose freely whether to accept Christ as Savior.

Yet Scripture shows that God is not indiscriminate with His grace. Instead, we read passages such as this:

For he chose us in him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight. In love he predestined us to be adopted as his sons through Jesus Christ, in accordance with his pleasure and will—to the praise of his glorious grace, which he has freely given us in the One he loves (Ephesians 1:4-6).

God is the one who makes a choice here. And when did that selection happen? Did it happen because of anything we could have done? No! for it happened “before the creation of the world.”

“Of course,” some may counter. “We are predestined, but it is because God looked through time and saw those who would be saved, and those are the ones who He chose to save. That is why God’s foreknowledge works. See Romans 8:29—’For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the likeness of his Son. . . .’”

Now, besides being a rather illogical thing to say that God chooses those who will be saved anyway (what need is there for God to choose?), this is not what is meant by foreknowledge. To quote Berkhof’s Systematic Theology

The following terms come into consideration here:

1. The Hebrew word yada’ and the Greek words ginoskein, proginoskein, and prognoisis. The word yada’ may simply mean “to know” or “to take cognizance” of someone or something, but may also be used in the more pregnant sense of “taking knowledge of one with loving care,” or “making one the object of loving care or elective love.” In this sense it serves the idea of election, Gen. 18:19; Amos 3:2; Hos. 13:5. The meaning of the words proginoskein and prognosis in the New Testament is not determined by their usage in the classics, but by the special meaning of yada’. They do not denote simple intellectual foresight or prescience, the mere taking of knowledge of something before hand, but rather a selective knowledge which regards one with favor and makes one an object of love, and thus approaches the idea of fore-ordination, Acts 2:23 (comp. 4:28); Rom. 8:29; 11:2; I Peter 1:2. These passages simply lose their meaning, if the words be taken in the sense of simply taking knowledge of one in advance, for God foreknows all men in that sense. Even Arminians feel constrained to give the words a more determinative meaning, namely, to foreknow one with absolute assurance in a certain state or condition.

Berkhof, L. Systematic Theology. WM. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co. Grand Rapids 1939, 1941 (111-112)

The words in both Greek and Hebrew used for knowledge and foreknowledge denote more than just simple factual knowledge of someone. They mean more than just that God knows someone will be saved. What these words mean is more on par with “love.” This is shown in the Old Testament by such phrases as “Adam knew his wife.” It is also shown in the New Testament by “I know my sheep and my sheep know me.” Later on, in the same context, Jesus says, “My father loves me” demonstrating again that the words are connected, knowledge -> love.

At this point, you may ask, “Doesn’t God love everybody?” Not in the sense that most people think. There is his general love displayed in His common grace (the fact that we are not as evil as we could be and the fact that it rains on the just and unjust alike). However, He does not love everyone enough to save them all. In fact, look at Romans 9:13

Just as it is written: “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.”

This is clearly a case where God loves someone but does not love another. Even if, as it is claimed, the word hate really means “less loved” that is no different. For Jacob was chosen and Esau was not. Jacob was saved and Esau was not. Esau got Common Grace, but Jacob got Saving Grace.

The fact that God does not save everyone is also displayed in other areas of the Scripture, both Old and New Testaments. Let’s look at Korah’s Rebellion in Numbers 16 for instance. After Korah rebelled, saying “You have gone too far! The whole community is holy, every one of them, and the LORD is with them. Why then do you set yourselves above the LORD’s assembly?” (Numbers 16:3) Then what happened?

When Moses heard this, he fell facedown. Then he said to Korah and all his followers: “In the morning the LORD will show who belongs to him and who is holy, and he will have that person come near him. The man he chooses he will cause to come near him. . . . The man the LORD chooses will be the one who is holy” (Numbers 16:4-5, 7b).

The LORD chose who was his. The LORD chose who was holy. And what happened to those that were not holy?

Then Moses said, “This is how you will know that the LORD has sent me to do all these things and that it was not my idea: If these men die a natural death and experience only what usually happens to men, then the LORD has not sent me. But if the LORD brings about something totally new, and the earth opens its mouth and swallows them, with everything that belongs to them, and they go down alive into the grave (Hebrew: Sheol), then you will know that these men have treated the LORD with contemp.”

As soon as he finished saying all this, the ground under them split apart and the earth opened its mouth and swallowed them, with their households and all Korah’s men and all their possessions. They went down alive into the grave, with everything they owned; the earth closed over them, and they perished and were gone from the community (Numbers 16:28-33).

What does this show? God surely sent all these men into the grave alive for a reason. They were justly punished. Yet not all were punished, for some were saved—the ones that the LORD drew near to Him.

God loved some more than others, and He chose to save some and not others. Is this wrong of God to do?

Just as it is written: “Jacob I loved, but Easu I hated.”

What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all! For he says to Moses,

I will have mercy on whom I have mercy,
And I will have compassion on whom I have compassion

It does not, therefore, depend on man’s desire (i.e. will) or effort, but on God’s mercy. For the Scripture says to Pharaoh: “I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.” Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden (Romans 9:13—18).

It is difficult to get a more explicit statement in Scripture. God has mercy on whom He wants to have mercy, and He hardens those whom He wants to harden. Where is man’s decision in all this? Look at verse 16—”It does not, therefore, depend on man’s desire or effort, but on God’s mercy.” Man has nothing to do with this. Why? Because man cannot do anything unless God first does something. You cannot love God until He first loves you. You cannot choose God unless He first chooses you. Jesus says, “Apart from me you can do nothing” (John 15:5) and Paul affirms “Those controlled by the sinful nature cannot please God” (Romans 8:8).

Now for a quick note on hardening: We know that God cannot commit sin, because, after all, He is God and it is against His nature to sin (just as it is against our original nature to please God). How, then, can He harden someone’s heart? This is not a case of God forcing someone to sin. God does not sit there and make Pharaoh sin. Rather, He removes what grace He had given Pharaoh so that Pharaoh completely and willingly does all that he desires in his sinful nature. As Jonathan Edwards illustrated in his sermon Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God, it is like a man standing on a steep slope in front of the pit. Only God’s hands are keeping him from falling of his own weight. If God removes that (and He certainly has no obligation to keep His grace on sinners), then the man will necessarily fall into the pit. So when God hardens someone’s heart, He is not forcing them to sin; rather, He is removing all that would have kept the man from doing what his heart desired in his depravity.

We can see this as we continue in Romans:

One of you will say to me: “Then why does God still blame us? For who resists his will?” But who are you, O man, to talk back to God? “Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, ‘Why did you make me like this?’” Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use?

What if God, choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patienct the objects of his wrath—prepared for destruction? What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory—even us, whom he also called, not only from the Jews but also from the Gentiles? Romans 9:19-24

Finally, let’s look at Hebrews 11:6—”And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards thse who earnestly seek him.”

This verse shows us that those without faith cannot please God. (see also Roman 8:5-8, quoted above) They cannot please God because it is impossible to please God without faith. And where does faith come from? Ephesians 2:8-9: “For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God—not by works, so that no one can boast.” Faith comes from God. Faith comes from God because if it came through works, we would have reason to boast (“That the Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have obtained it, a righteousness that is by faith; but Israel, who pursued a law of righteousness, has not attained it. Why not? Because they pursued it not by faith but as if it were works.” Romans 9:30b-32).) We cannot please God without faith. Faith comes from God. Therefore, we cannot please God unless God gives us something to enable us to please Him. Is that not what is said by “No one may come to me unless the Father enables him?” (John 6)

Perseverance of the Saints

After you are saved, can you fall away? Not if God chooses who will be saved in the first place. We know from several places that God does not change—”Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever” (Hebrews 13:8); “I the LORD do not change” (Malachi 3:6); and others. Therefore, if God chooses you to be saved, you will be saved! You cannot fall away because God cannot change His mind and damn you after He has chosen you for salvation.

But let’s examine some that seem to indicate that maybe you can lose your salvation. The first one people usually pop up with is Hebrews 6:4-6:

It is impossible for those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, who have shared in the Holy Spirit, who have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the coming age, if they fall away to be brought back to repentance, because to their loss they are crucifying the Son of God all over again and subjecting him to public disgrace.

This holds some serious problems for everyone if it does imply is that you can lose your salvation. What exactly is falling away? It must be the committing of some kind of sin, correct? Yet what sin is it? It doesn’t say! What if that sin was as simple as lying? Can anyone honestly say that they have never lied since becoming a Christian? In that case, there is no one saved for all would have fallen away and would not be able to return to repentance.

So what exactly is this then? Perhaps the unpardonable sin? The bottom line is that we don’t know and it doesn’t matter. Why? Because we read in verse 9 of the same chapter, “Even though we speak like this, dear friends, we are confident of better things in your case—things that accompany salvation.”

Things that accompany salvation. What need have we to fear then? Better things are expected of us and it accompanies salvation!

If we deliberately keep on sinning after we have received the knowledge of the truth, no sacrifice for sins is left, but only a fearful expectation of judgment and of raging fire that will consume the enemies of God. Anyone who rejected the law of Moses died without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses. How much more severely do you think a man who has trampled the Son of God under foot, who has treated as an unholy thing the blood of the covenant that sanctified him, and who has insulted the Spirit of grace? (Hebrews 10:26-29)

This as well seems to indicate that we can fall away. But what exactly is this talking about? Is it really talking about Christians? No! It is talking about those who have “received the knowledge of the truth” not necessarily those who believed the truth at some point in time. To my mind, this seems more to refer to those who were never saved, but rather scoffed at Christ when He was presented to them. That is the kind of man who “trampled the Son of God under foot.”

Let us now look at verses guaranteeing our inheritance into the kingdom of God.

Having believed, you were marked in him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit, who is a deposit guaranteeing our inheritance until the redemption of those who are God’s possession—to the praise of his glory (Ephesians 1:13b-14).

What does this mean? We are guaranteed our inheritance until the redemption if we have the Holy Spirit. How do we get the Holy Spirit? “Having believed” you received the Holy Spirit. Anyone who believes has the Holy Spirit and it is a guarantee for our inheritance.

My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me. I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one can snatch them out of my hand. My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all; no one can snatch them out of my Father’s hand. I and the Father are one (John 10:27-30).

Ah! What a joy is found in this statement! No one can snatch us out of the LORD’s hand! No one! Including ourselves! There is even stronger indication of this in the Greek text, since it is in the Middle Voice. Another example of the middle voice would be “I kicked myself.” In this text, it would mean, “No one, not even you, can snatch you out of my hand.”

What a joy and confidence we have in the words of Christ! He Himself, our leader and the one we worship, has said that we are secure in the hand of the Father who is one with Christ. How much we should be rejoicing rather than fearing whether or not we have committed the unpardonable sin or have fallen away from the faith, never to return again! What a black despair that would be if it were true! If we could fall away from the LORD, I would fall a thousand times each day. And I know the same is true of you as well.

The charge leveled at Calvinists now is, “If that is true, then why do we even bother not to sin? If there is no consequence for our sinful behaviors, why don’t we have free reign to sin?”

There is a consequence to our sinful behavior, however. Our own pain here on Earth as we face the consequences of our actions is not taken away simply because our eternal fate is secure. Further, God is not pleased with us when we sin—yet He will not go back on His promise to us. Furthermore, we read

What shall we say, then? Shall we go on sinning so that grace may increase? By no means! We died to sin; how can we live in it any longer? Or don’t you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death?…. In the same way, count yourselves dead to sin but alive to God in Christ Jesus. Therefore do not let sin reign in your mortal body so that you obey its evil desires. Do not offer the parts of your body to sin as instruments of wickedness, but rather offer yourselves to God, as those who have been brough from death to life; and offer the parts of your body to him as instruments of righteousness. For sin shall not be your master, because you are not under law, but under grace.

What then? Shall we sin because we are not under law but under grace? By no means! Don’t you know that when you offer yourselves to someone to obey him as slaves, you are slaves to the one whom you obey–whether you are slaves to sin, which leads to death, or to obedience, which leads to righteousness? But thanks be to God that, though you used to be slaves to sin, you wholeheartedly obeyed the form of teaching to which you were entrusted. You have been set free from sin and have become slaves to righteousness (Romans 6:1-3, 11-18).

Conclusion

What benefit have we to be Calvinists? It has been said that evangelism suffers as a result of the spread of Calvinists. This is simply not true. Incidental proof of that is the fact that my parents, both Calvinists, are also missionaries to Ukraine. Why? Because God gave us the commandment to go and we must go forth and spread the word.

Why? Surely God could have used someone else to do it, couldn’t he? Of course he could have used someone else, but He chose the means as well as the end for His will to be carried out. God doesn’t just have the end in mind; He has every single miniscule detail plotted out and nothing happens that will ever surprise Him or go against His will. That is the God that we worship! We do not worship some genie granting us our three wishes who is then bound to watch His creation on the sidelines. We cannot so restrict God that in our minds He cannot rule what He created!

Some people call a Calvinistic God a monster. If a God wills that His creation shall murder and cheat and steal and rape, then that God is a monster. This argument is not true. One needs only to look at Joseph. He was sold by his own brothers into slavery. Surely, that was an evil thing, correct? Yet God meant it for good! Joseph’s rights were violated by being thrown in the pit and then sold into slavery, yet God was there working it all along so that years later, He could deliver them from Egypt and show His power through Pharaoh. We cannot think that God doesn’t know what He’s doing and that history “just happens.” There is a plan behind it and the one who is performing the plan is God Almighty! Who are we to question His decrees?

Furthermore, the only time that we are really “free” in our natural state is when God allows us to commit our evil actions and follow our evil desires. It is a wonder that those who believe in “free will” bristle at this thought! If God’s will is being done by allowing us to freely sin, then what problem is there in that? Man is still just as responsible and God is still not guilty of anything! Yet when Calvinists allow this kind of freedom from man, Arminians get furious! I wonder why.

Calvinism does not take away free will, it just defines it differently than Arminians. Our will must be subservient to God’s will because God is God, and we are not; but God will never force us to sin. That would be against His nature. But the only time this could even happen is if our nature really was neutral or good. If our wills truly are evil, God has no need to ever force us to do evil. Ironically, this yields the humorous result that if an Arminian allows free will, he thinks it’s a God-given right but if a Calvinist allows free will, the same Arminian thinks God is a monster!

God is not a monster under Calvinism, despite the ample times Arminians have slandered Him thusly. In reality, Calvinism is the only theology that has an adequate view of the love of God, the sovereignty of God, the holiness of God, and the righteousness of God. It is the only theology that remains faithful to the entire text of Scripture.

With the grace that God has given me to make me what I am, I pray that He is with all who read this, that you may learn more about who He is from these words.

And he [the LORD] said, “Go, and say to this people:
“‘Keep on hearing, but do not understand;
keep on seeing, but do not perceive.’
Make the heart of this people dull,
and their ears heavy,
and blind their eyes;
lest they see with their eyes,
and hear with their ears,
and understand with their hearts,
and turn and be healed” (Isaiah 6:9-10)

The key part of this passage is the lest. God tells Isaiah to make the heart of the people dull, to make their ears heavy and their eyes darkened, lest they see, hear, understand and consequently turn and be healed.

What does that “lest” mean? The dictionary definition is “With the intention of preventing (something undesirable); to avoid the risk of.” In other words: “Make the heart of this people dull, and their ears heavy, and blind their eyes; to prevent them from seeing with their eyes, and hearing with their ears, and understanding with their hearts, to ensure that they do not turn and be healed.”

If God wants to save all people universally, why is it that He is doing something specifically intended to ensure a certain group of people does not get saved?

Notice that this is not a problem for the Calvinist interpretation of 1 Timothy 2:4 and 2 Peter 3:9, which limits the range of who God wants saved to the Elect. Isaiah 6:9-10 is in perfect harmony with that understanding of those two New Testament passages.

But there is even more. Jesus quoted that passage from Isaiah as explanation for why He spoke in parables, and it is recorded in every Gospel:

Then the disciples came and said to him, “Why do you speak to them in parables?” And he answered them, “To you it has been given to know the secrets of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been given. For to the one who has, more will be given, and he will have an abundance, but from the one who has not, even what he has will be taken away. This is why I speak to them in parables, because seeing they do not see, and hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand. Indeed, in their case the prophecy of Isaiah is fulfilled that says:

“‘“You will indeed hear but never understand,
and you will indeed see but never perceive.”
For this people’s heart has grown dull,
and with their ears they can barely hear,
and their eyes they have closed,
lest they should see with their eyes
and hear with their ears
and understand with their heart
and turn, and I would heal them’” (Matthew 13:10-15).

And when he was alone, those around him with the twelve asked him about the parables. And he said to them, “To you has been given the secret of the kingdom of God, but for those outside everything is in parables, so that

‘they may indeed see but not perceive,
and may indeed hear but not understand,
lest they should turn and be forgiven’” (Mark 4:10-12).

And when his disciples asked him what this parable meant, he said, “To you it has been given to know the secrets of the kingdom of God, but for others they are in parables, so that ‘seeing they may not see, and hearing they may not understand’” (Luke 8:9-10).

Though he had done so many signs before them, they still did not believe in him, so that the word spoken by the prophet Isaiah might be fulfilled:

“Lord, who has believed what he heard from us,
and to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?”

Therefore they could not believe. For again Isaiah said,

“He has blinded their eyes
and hardened their heart,
lest they see with their eyes,
and understand with their heart, and turn,
and I would heal them” (John 12:36b-40).

Notice that in each instance, Christ speaks in parables precisely so that a certain group of people would be unable to understand it. Indeed, He says that He speaks plainly to the disciples because “To you it has been given to know the secrets of the kingdom of heaven.” Some are given this information; others were not. Indeed, look at John’s conclusion regarding those it was not granted to in John 12:39: “Therefore they could not believe.” They were unable to do so, and it was the manner by which Christ spoke that ensured this outcome, lest they be saved.

Again, this fits the Calvinist understanding, but I cannot make heads or tails of how that is to fit in to the Arminian understanding.

By the way, Isaiah is not just quoted in the Gospels. It’s also quoted in Acts 28:

And disagreeing among themselves, they departed after Paul had made one statement: “The Holy Spirit was right in saying to your fathers through Isaiah the prophet:

“‘Go to this people, and say,
“You will indeed hear but never understand,
and you will indeed see but never perceive.”
For this people’s heart has grown dull,
and with their ears they can barely hear,
and their eyes they have closed;
lest they should see with their eyes
and hear with their ears
and understand with their heart
and turn, and I would heal them.’

Therefore let it be known to you that this salvation of God has been sent to the Gentiles; they will listen” (Acts 28:25-28).

And again Paul quotes it in Romans 11:

What then? Israel failed to obtain what it was seeking. The elect obtained it, but the rest were hardened, as it is written,

“God gave them a spirit of stupor,
eyes that would not see
and ears that would not hear,
down to this very day” (Romans 11:7-8).

In all these occurrences, the prophecy of Isaiah is linked to those who would not (indeed, who cannot) believe. It seems quite plain that God does not intend to bring every individual to salvation, but instead is working to ensure that some are not saved at all. Indeed, is that not the conclusion of 2 Thessalonians 2:11-12? “Therefore God sends them a strong delusion, so that they may believe what is false, in order that all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness.”

All these passages make sense in Calvinism, yet seem to lead only to contradiction for Arminians. If God wants to save all men, why send any delusion at all? If God wants to save all men, why make it more difficult for someone to be saved? Put it this way. Suppose I say, “I want to give every single person, without exception, $1,000,000 and I will do as much as I can to ensure that every person gets that $1,000,000” would it make sense for me to then go out and write signs advertising this giveaway solely in ancient Sanskrit, stating, “I write these signs in Sanskrit lest you people understand and come to me for $1,000,000”?

Suppose on the other hand I say, “I want to give every single person who can read Sanskrit $1,000,000, and I will do as much as I can to ensure that all of them get that $1,000,000” then wouldn’t it be consistent for me to say, “I write these signs in Sanskrit lest those who I’ve not picked come to me for $1,000,000”? That is, if I intend for X to get something and I do not intend for Y to get it, isn’t it logical for me to do things in such a manner that would ensure Y does not get what I intend for X?

Thus, my own Calvinistic interpretation of both 1 Timothy/2 Peter and Isaiah 6 is consistent. I know how Arminians interpret 1 Timothy/2 Peter. But the challenge remains: can any of them interpret Isaiah 6 in a way that is consistent with their interpretation of 1 Timothy/2 Peter?

It is not by accident that the first time my own Arminian ideas were questioned came at the hands of an atheist. (Yes, I was at one point in time an Arminian.) You see, atheists, for all their incorrect assumptions about God, are not stupid people. They can see a fatal flaw in Christianity if ever there was one.

Well, there isn’t one. But I found that as an Arminian, I could not adequately defend Christianity. For the Calvinist, there is little surprise as to why I could not—I couldn’t defend Christianity when I was an Arminian because Arminianism is self-contradictory. Of course, I do not expect Arminians to agree with this. Yet my own experience convinces me that it is impossible to defend Arminianism under the close scrutiny of a logic-oriented atheist.

Given this, it is little wonder to me that so many Arminian Christians flee debates with atheists. Indeed, looking at the many Arminian websites around the net today, they are almost exclusively oriented toward attacking Calvinism rather than toward defending the faith against atheists. Could it be that their own thinking shows us flaws in the Arminian system of salvation and because they know these flaws are there, they do not feel comfortable talking to atheists?

Atheists are quick to jump on Arminians, and it’s easier to do so because Arminians are wrong. Since most Christians in America today are Arminians it is no wonder that atheists seem to be gaining the upper hand in much of the scholarly debate.

The simple fact of the matter is this: Atheists can defeat Arminianism. But atheists cannot defeat Calvinism. Why? I claim that it is ultimately because Calvinism is right and Arminianism is wrong.

Yet it is one thing to claim and another thing to prove. Therefore, I shall spend the next bit of this post demonstrating the illogical beliefs at work in Arminianism. These points will not apply to every single Arminian across the board. There is a wide range of belief. In fact, Arminians are still undecided as to whether or not you can lose your salvation. But I am looking at the views of Arminians I have debated and read from. My aim is to accurately portray modern Arminian thought (as opposed to what Arminius himself taught—which is often vastly different than modern Arminianism) since there are far more of these types of Arminians than the so-called Classical Arminians.

“If God is sovereign, then you cannot have free will.”

During a high school trip, one of my atheistic friends (Nate) said those words to me. I, like any other typical Arminian Christian, quickly jumped at him with the usual, “Yes there is!”

So Nate offered an example. “Suppose that I have a hamster in my hand. I am completely sovereign because the hamster must do what I demand it to do. If I put it down on a table, it can now make free choices, but I am no longer sovereign, because I cannot determine what the hamster will do.”

It was the first time I had heard such an argument. Try as I might, I couldn’t think of a way out of that simple argument. Could it be that there was no such thing as free will, or was it that God was not sovereign? But didn’t all the preachers and theological writers of the time proclaim that we had free will and God was sovereign? I had heard a sermon in the local community where the pastor said, “God will never violate your free will” yet this same pastor also said he believed that God was sovereign. So, how could I defend this position?

The problem arose because I couldn’t. Here’s why. What I thought of as freedom was really autonomy. And if His creation has autonomy, God had no sovereignty. It is precisely this confusion of terms that led atheist Nate to his attack on Christianity.

Autonomy—literally: self-law. Theologically: absolute freedom to do as one wishes.

The most common understanding of what it means to have free will renders God as kind of a nebulous spectator watching the world. Most Christians today feel that God doesn’t interfere in our choices; that He has set events in motion, but that He allows us to do as we please, watching how things will turn out. Yet, those same Christians also believe God is sovereign. (Truly, if you do not believe that God is sovereign at all, then you cannot be a Christian, for you do not even believe in a “god” let alone the God of the Bible.)

In other words, if there is a famine, God is sovereignly using that to His ends—but if you decide to commit adultery, then God will not interfere. At this point, let me make the distinction between the two classes of Arminians. There are Arminians who believe that God CANNOT interfere with your free will because He is unable to do so (these people would rightly be called Pelagians, and are not even true Christians). The other class (which is where most Arminians belong) believe that God could interfere, but that He never will.

The point I wish to make is this: that even though Arminians (not the Pelagians listed above!) say that God can interfere with your freedom, in actuality, He cannot do so. This is because the arguments that Arminians use to say Calvinism is immoral (for example) would equally apply to the Arminian view, meaning that if their arguments are actually sound, the Arminian view can only pay lip service to the idea that God could interfere if He chose to do so. The result is that under the Arminian system, you still have autonomy.

I was once asked, “Why can’t God have made a planet somewhere with even one autonomous human being on it? Aren’t you limiting God if you say He can’t?” My answer is this: “It is no more limiting to God than to say that God cannot make a round square.” It is impossible for God to make an autonomous being, for to be autonomous you must thereby be a law unto yourself so that God cannot do anything to you, nor can He interfere with anything that you choose.

The will cannot be free in that sense at all, because to be free it must be autonomous. Otherwise, it is not free but bound by some other law. Granted, most Arminians will say that human will is contingent on the will of God (in which case, I must point out it is no longer “free” will but “contingent” will).

This presents the Arminian with a choice (pun definitely intended). Either they become full Pelagians, or they must recognize that their will is not as free as they think it is.

But let’s look at the fundamental question again. Why can’t God violate your free will? Under the Arminian position above, it is because He doesn’t want to violate your free will. Arminians believe that God loves us so much that He gives us free will. What this effectively does is take God out of the picture completely, at least as it regards our choices. It says that God sovereignly grants us freedom to act apart from Him—which is to say God sovereignly grants us the nullification of His sovereignty. As a result, in Arminianism, God has granted us autonomy.

At the heart of Arminianism is this issue of free will. Upholding free will is so important to the Arminian when it comes to salvation that they will literally sacrifice God’s sovereignty to uphold it. This is because the Arminian views free will as essential to morality. Indeed, a common Arminian refrain is, “God is sovereign, but also just. We cannot give so much to His sovereignty that it takes away from His justice.”

But what does Salvation have to do with God’s justice at all? The answer is, of course, nothing. Salvation depends on God’s mercy (Romans 9:16), not justice. So the Arminian position on the Sovereignty of God in salvation begins from a flawed starting point, for it is looking upon Salvation as if it needed to be just. Suppose God were to work out Salvation in matters of Justice. If God was only Justice without Mercy, what do we have?

“For the wages of sin is death” (Romans 6:23).

“For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.” (Romans 3:23)

We all sin, and the wages of sin is death. If God were only Just, then all would deserve death. But what does the end of Romans 6:23 say? “But the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.” Therefore, salvation is dependent on the gift of God. It must be so, because if God were only Just then all would die and go to hell.

But does this mean God is unjust? Far be it from being so! To use RC Sproul’s terms, God is not unjust, but rather non-just. Non-justice comes in two forms: injustice and mercy. Mercy is not justice, but neither is it injustice; it is simply non-justice. We do not want justice from God; we want non-justice in the form of mercy. Mercy is the good form of non-justice, while injustice is the bad form.

Salvation is a gift of God. As such:

What then shall we say that Abraham, our forefather, discovered in this matter? If, in fact, Abraham was justified by his works, he had something to boast about—but not before God. What does the Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness.” Now when a man works, his wages are not credited to him as a gift, but as an obligation. However, to the man who does not work but trusts God who justifies the wicked, his faith is credited as righteousness (Romans 4:1-5).

Our salvation is a result of the gift of God. A gift is not something that we deserve, otherwise it would be a wage (or a payment) not a gift. What do we deserve? We deserve death (for the wages of sin is death).

So what does this have to do with the sovereignty of God? It has everything to do with it, because of the way that typical Arminians view salvation. In the Arminian scheme of salvation, we are dead in our sins. (This is a stand from classical Arminianism; Arminius himself taught Original Sin. If you don’t believe this, then you are a Pelagian, not an Arminian.) But though we are dead in our sins, God makes us alive. Does God make just some alive, under Arminianism? No, but rather all are made alive enough so that they can choose whether or not to follow God. This being made alive is not the same thing as Regeneration. Rather, God gives each sinner the ability to make a choice about salvation.

Herein lies the problem. In Arminianism, the sinner decides whether or not to believe. As such, God is out of the picture in regards to that choice. He makes the ability to choose, but does not determine the outcome of the choice. By definition God is thereby not sovereign over the choice of salvation.

Arminians believe that God gives all sinners a choice to believe or not to believe. It is thereby contingent on the individual person as to whether or not they will believe. Further, God does not interfere one way or the other in the decision. In Arminianism, God cannot justly interfere with the sinner’s choice, for if God made a sinner believe in Him then the Arminian claims it is not true love toward God, and if God made a sinner choose hell, then everyone agrees that would make God a tyrant (no matter what system of theology you believe). So here is the point where Arminians make freedom into autonomy—if God is completely outside of the picture, then there are no laws restricting the sinner in this choice; the sinner is therefore a perfectly free agent (and has, by definition, autonomy over that choice).

So, as you can see, by definition, God is not sovereign in the Arminian system of salvation. He does not control who will believe—each individual autonomously decides that himself. Arminians try to maintain sovereignty here by saying that God still knows what the future is.

Let’s examine this argument for a moment. Suppose you see a man on the street. He has a gun, and has pointed it at the head of a passing motorist. If you know that the murderer will pull the trigger and kill the motorist, does that make you sovereign? Obviously not. You can know all the future events forever, but that doesn’t make you sovereign. Things can still happen that you don’t want to happen, and just because you know they will happen doesn’t mean you are in control of the situation, any more than the apostle Peter became sovereign when Jesus told him what kind of death he would have. No, you see, foreknowledge does not give you sovereignty.

Let’s put it another way. Suppose you’ve watched Top Gun five thousand times so that you have every line memorized and you can mentally recall every single scene. If you put the DVD in your player and start the video, does your knowledge of what will happen make you sovereign over the events that unfold? Can you keep Goose from being killed in the film? Obviously not.

So let us suppose that God looks through time and sees what’s going to happen and decides that He wants it to happen that way without interference from Him. Does that make Him sovereign? No, merely an oracle and a fortune teller. If God is sovereign then He must be able to interfere in the events that are going to happen. If God just looks through time as a spectator, then it is nothing less than Him saying, “Hmmmm. I decree that that which shall happen shall happen because that’s what I want anyway.”

But that brings up another problem in Arminianism. God doesn’t always get what He wants! And this brings us to an interesting logical dilemma. By definition, a sovereign gets what he or she wants. That’s what being sovereign means. So the problems mount for the Arminian. How can a sovereign God not get what a sovereign God wants?

The Arminian often counters that a sovereign God wants us to have free will more than He wants us all to be saved. This seems to be rather disturbing though. Why would a loving God want freedom more than salvation? If a child wanders into the street and is about to be struck by a car, we all know that we should care more for saving the child than for allowing them freedom. Even if the child is petulant and throws a fit on the side of the road and annoys us to the point of our wanting to throw the child under the nearest city bus, the moral thing is still to save the child rather than saving the child’s freedom, isn’t it? Maintaining freedom as higher than salvation simply doesn’t fit in Arminian ethics.

Let us return to the issue of sovereignty again. Arminians claim that though God loves everyone and wants all to be saved, He would rather we have freedom to choose to reject Him. So God wants us to have free will more than He wants us all saved. The result is that God’s salvation is subservient to human will. God wants our wills to be so intact that He will allow you to go to hell rather than sacrifice your freedom. Even if He doesn’t want you there, He will still rather have you there than to violate your freedom.

Now remember what was stated above: By definition, a sovereign gets what he or she wants. When it comes to salvation, who gets what they want under Arminianism? It is not God, for He wants all saved and clearly not all are saved. But who does always get what he or she wants? Every single person who chooses whether or not to believe. Our choices are sovereign. We determine our salvation. We get what we want. If we want to be with God, we will be; if we do not, we will forever be away from Him. Therefore, we—not God—are sovereign.

But look at another erroneous concept from the Arminian. They presuppose that God loves everyone, and that He wants all to be saved. Now, if God is sovereign and if this is true, then there’s no logical reason why any should be damned. I’m not God, yet I can devise several ideas that would get all men saved if I want them all saved.

If I was in the place of God, I could do the following:

1) Arrange the stars to spell “Jesus Christ is Lord” in every human language.

2) Have choirs of angels sing out what the stars say so that illiterate people are saved too.

3) I could whisper in the minds of everyone that I Am The Way.

4) If anyone was blind, mute, or deaf—I could cure them, and show them everything else I’ve done.

5) I could send my Son Jesus to every house to personally perform miracles for all to see.

6) I could make faith no longer a prerequisite for salvation, and instead just say “any who exist are saved”.

And you see, none of these ways would even violate free will. And though no one doubts this, God’s a lot smarter than I am! Why can’t He come up with better plans for everyone to be saved?

The answer is simple: God doesn’t love everyone the same. “Just as it is written: ‘Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.” (Romans 9:13). What did Jacob do to deserve the love of God? “Yet, before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad—in order that God’s purpose in election might stand: not by works, but by him who calls—she was told, ‘The older will serve the younger.’ Just as it is written: ‘Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.’” (Romans 9:11-13).

Arminians dislike this passage (to be fair to them, they will say they only dislike the Calvinist interpretation of the passage). The plain meaning is obvious. God doesn’t love everyone.

Now why would this be wrong for God to do? It is only wrong if those people that God “hates” deserve love instead. But we have already shown above that all deserve hell. How, then, is it wrong for God to hate people who have sinned?

I was given this analogy by an Arminian: Suppose a ship sank and you can save all the people by tossing a life preserver into the water. If you do not do so, isn’t that immoral?

But the analogy has two problems. First of all, sinners do not deserve salvation. It is one thing when people are dying in the water—from the human perspective, they do not deserve that. But if they did deserve death, it would actually be non-just for anyone to save them! Is it just for you to save someone from the electric chair when he justly deserves to die? Likewise, if people deserve hell, and you do not give it to them, then you are not acting in justice, but in mercy.

The second problem is this: in this analogy, if one person dies because you didn’t save them, even though you had the power to, then you are not being just. But with God, that already happens. God already doesn’t save everyone even though He could. Even Arminians realize that God could save everyone by forcing them to believe, if He so chose to do so! Indeed, there’s no reason why God had to insist on faith being the requirement for someone to be saved, even on Arminian grounds. So every time an Arminian uses this illustration, he is literally arguing that God is not just.

Again, they claim that God doesn’t want to violate our free will (again, asserting our autonomy). Yet God can and does save us, and does so without violating our “free will!” God can save all the people without violating free will at all. God is all powerful! Going back to the analogy: Suppose He tosses you a life raft and you do not accept it, God can still make it possible for you to breathe underwater. He is sovereign! He can make the ocean dry up! He can do anything He wants, none of which would violate your free will, so that you will be saved. In salvation, He merely needs to change the basis of salvation to existence instead of faith. But He doesn’t do that! Why would God not do that if He wants all saved? Because He doesn’t want all saved. He wants something more than salvation, even on Arminian grounds (He at the very least wants us to freely choose Him more than He wants us to be saved).

So you can see that Arminians have inconsistent views, not only because they believe they can be autonomous while claiming they do not believe such things, but because they believe that God wants all men saved while He acts in a way that even they must agree will not get all saved. Arminians claim God is sovereign, yet man is sovereign in salvation. The Arminian view is full of self-contradictions and is therefore rightly considered illogical.

In our current age in America, it seems that the philosophical trend is toward more and more pluralism. That is, we do not wish to “rock the boat” or upset anyone, so we accept all religious claims as being equally valid. People who claim the name Christian start to say things like, “There are many paths to God” and “Doctrine isn’t important, just give me the love of Jesus.”

Indeed, I’m sure that you’ve often heard the expression “Doctrine divides.” It is spoken as if it were a bad thing for doctrine to divide people. The fact of the matter is that our doctrines are extremely important because they define what we believe. Because people are ignorant of this, they misunderstand what it means to assert a particular doctrine. Indeed, the assertion that it is wrong to hold to any doctrine is, by definition, a doctrine itself.

Ignorance is rampant in many forms in today’s church. Ignorance of important theological distinctions is just one aspect of it. Most people have never read a single book in the Bible, let alone its entirety. Most cannot quote the Ten Commandments at all, even in paraphrased form (and it does no good to argue that the US Government prohibits them being posted in schools—believers still have the Bible and are without excuse).

In fact, you can give yourself a quick mini-test to see how Biblically aware you are:

What is Scripture and how do we know?
What is the greatest commandment and why is it the greatest?
What was the purpose of the Old Testament?
What is atonement?
What did Christ’s death accomplish?

These are just a bare sampling of questions, all of which dealing with basic issues important to Christianity. Most Christians would not be able to correctly answer all these questions. Many would not even bother trying in the first place! Equally saddening is the fact that there are many pastors and seminary professors who would answer wrongly or not at all on these questions.

Naturally, I am not saying that our salvation is dependent upon our knowledge of these things. However, that does not decrease their importance. Just as we can eat food without understanding how it is digested by our stomach, so we can believe in Christ with a sincere faith without knowing the full extent of what He has done—although there is a basic level of knowledge that must obviously be met if Christ is to mean anything to the one claiming Him as Savior. However, although we can partake in nourishment without fully understanding the digestive system, our limited knowledge in eating does not equip us to fight diseases such as ulcers and pancreatic cancer. Doctors must study the digestive system in order to understand the causes of these things so they may find a cure. Likewise, it is impossible for us to recognize heresies and falsehoods if we do not study who Christ is and what He has done. This is the reason the Bible has been given to us.

I have been on the `”front lines” (so to speak) in debates on many doctrinal issues, including debates on the very existence of God. It is impossible to argue meaningfully with an atheist about issues such as morality, historical proofs, and philosophical necessities without understanding first what Christianity is. Unless you understand your faith—unless you know what you believe and why—then you will be tossed by every wave in a philosophical discussion.

Most of us wish to avoid all such discussions whatsoever, however (a result, I am convinced, of the fact that most people realize they are ignorant of what they should know and do not wish to be exposed). You might be thinking to yourself, “I’m never going to debate an atheist, so why should I worry about understanding these issues?”

Frankly, because God commands you to. The Christian is not called to avoid controversy and conflict with irrational worldviews. In 2 Peter 3:15 we read “always [be] ready to make a defense to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you, yet with gentleness and reverence.” We are commanded to be able to make a defense (an argument, or explanation) of why we believe what we do. In order to do so, we must first know what it is we do believe.

Consequently, while it is easy to dismiss the debate on Calvinism and Arminianism as being a minor argument that has no practical application to any real world issues, it is most decidedly not so. I have had practical experience debating atheists, first as an Arminian, and then as a Calvinist. The Arminian position does not stand very well against the atheistic attacks because it is based on a misunderstanding of the Scriptures, which leads to contradictions that atheists can point out. Calvinism, however, is a firm system of beliefs that is based not on philosophies of man, but on the very words of God. God will not contradict Himself, and in Calvinism He does not do so.

Calvinism wins in apologetics. In a recent discussion that I had with an Objectivist atheist, I mentioned that I was a Calvinist. His response was “At least Calvinists have the luxury of being consistent with the Bible.” The atheist does not reject Calvinism because it is inconsistent; he rejects it because he hates the system of Calvinism. It is not a matter of consistency, but of personal feelings towards it.

Why must we have a solid faith, one built on the truth of Scripture and not on our feelings? Because our feelings often change like shifting sands. Indeed, feelings are how many people are persuaded to join cults, like Mormonism. A solid faith, one built on the Biblical foundations of real knowledge will not fail when it is put to the test. It does not sway to the emotion of the time. It does not crumple under the pressure of vain philosophies. It stands firm because it is truth.

When Jesus spoke to the woman at the well, He said that worshiping God must be done “in spirit and truth” (John 4:24). If our foundation is on anything other than the truth of God, then it is vain worship.

The reasons for a solid faith are numerous. Sure, it takes discipline. It takes reading the Bible. It takes prayer. It takes a relationship with God. It takes effort to do. But the rewards are vast indeed!

I was once engaged in an online debate with a man who said, among other things, that the Calvinist’s God is a monster because it is impossible to have moral responsibility without free will. Since the bounds of the online debate were not conductive for detailed debate, and because at the time I thought written debates to be of more value than I currently do, I challenged him to such a debate. He said he would not do so because he did not want to “eviscerate” me.

Okay…

Anyway, the first and most important thing to note here is that the entire Arminian argument about free will and responsibility is found not in Scripture, but rather in philosophy. Indeed, when I quoted Romans 9:16 (“So then it does not depend on the man who wills or the man who runs, but on God who has mercy”) to the above referenced gentleman, he countered that we must interpret Scripture based on what makes logical and philosophical sense, not based on what Scripture actually says.

Now the Arminian argument certainly does seem to have some merit if based solely on philosophical grounds. After all, how “fair” is it to condemn someone for being what he or she is? If someone can’t help but sin, then why should that person be punished?

But while the Arminian tends to focus on the negative—the sinner who can’t help but sin—the opposite aspect cannot be ignored. If the Arminian argument is that it is not “fair” to punish people who had no choice in sinning, it likewise cannot be “fair” to reward anyone who had no choice in doing good either.

Certainly this seems to follow. If we are morally culpable because of freedom, we are only morally praiseworthy if we are free too.

Now this doesn’t seem to be too controversial so far. However, consider the simple fact that God cannot sin. We know from the Scripture that God is perfectly good in His nature. Therefore, God does not have the freedom to sin.

This is not a problem for the Calvinist because Calvinism recognizes that the will need not be free in order to maintain moral responsibility. It is, however, devastating to the Arminian position. Some have tried to get around it by saying that God could do evil, He just keeps Himself from doing it¹. Yet when we read passages like Hebrews 6:18 we discover that it is not an issue of God being able to sin but choosing not to—it is impossible for God to lie, and if we extend that to all sins (as seems logical), then it is impossible for God to sin at all.

If it is impossible for God to sin, then He must necessarily always do good. But if He is always good without the possibility of evil, then according to the Arminian there is no goodness in God’s lack of evil for He could not have sinned in the first place. Accoring to this argument, if God does not have the freedom to sin, then God’s actions cannot be morally good any more than our actions could be morally wrong if we did not have the freedom to do good. It is merely how God is—there is nothing good nor evil about it.

But how logical is it to say, “God is not honest because He doesn’t have the capacity to lie”? How logical is it to say, “God is not just because He doesn’t have the capacity to punish wrongly”? How logical is it to say, “God is not good because He does not have the capacity to do evil”? It is clear that the moral descriptions do not depend on freedom, but rather on what God is.

And how logical is it to say, “Man is not dishonest because he doesn’t have the capacity to tell the truth”? How logical is it to say, “Man is not unjust because he doesn’t have the capacity to punish wickedness”? How logical is it to say, “Man is not evil because he does not have the capacity to do good”? Once again, it is clear that the moral descriptions do not depend on freedom, but rather on what man is.

Someone is evil if he does evil, not if he had no choice but to do evil. Is it just to punish something if it cannot help but be evil? Well, is it just to praise God if He cannot help but be good?

Examine that and you will find your answer.

The Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance.

The Arminian claim is that the prima facie reading is that the “any” and “all” should be read as “any people” and “all people.”

As I have argued elsewhere (and in an old article that I’m currently editing, which will be posted, Lord willing, in upcoming days), the verse itself provides a restriction on “any” and “all” that is not universal. That is, the object of “any” and “all” is the noun “you”, which in the context of 2 Peter is the Elect. This blog post is not going to go through that material a second time, but instead I want to counter the claim that the prima facie reading is a universal reading.

The easiest way for me to demonstrate this is to simply give some counter examples in the same structure as 2 Peter 3:9 that are obviously not intended to be taken universally. Suppose that the CEO of a company sent an e-mail to his workers and said, “Your paychecks are being printed right now. They are coming out a bit slow. This is because we are unwilling that any should be unpaid, but that all should receive their check.” No one would conclude from that sentence that the CEO intended to pay every single person on Earth, but rather he intends to pay everyone to whom he writes.

Other examples can easily be constructed in this same format. A platoon leader on the battlefield might say to his men, “Make sure you get an accurate count of the wounded. We are not willing that any should be left behind, but all of them make it back to camp.” Again, it would be wrong to assume that the platoon leader wants to make sure every person on Earth makes it back to camp.

Due to the counter examples that follow the same format of 2 Peter 3:9, the prima facie reading of the verse as implying Arminianism cannot be substantiated.